JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been preferred under section 331 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree dated 12-6-84 passed by the by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal no. 103/270/55 of 1983-84/Banda dismissing the appeal of the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 23-5-80 of Assistant Collector First Class, Banda, in suit no. 79/234/80/79 under sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that suit No. 80/79 under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 was filed by Baijnath in respect of plot nos. 188 (area 4-15-0), 189 (area 2-3-0) and 190 (area 2-3-0) situated at village Andaura, Pargana Baberu, district Banda, alleging that he was in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute as Bhumidhar and that the entry regarding possession of Badri, defendant no. 3, was against the provisions of law that the entry in favour of Badri defendant in class 9 should be expunged, and that if Badri was found to be in possession, the possession be delivered to him after eviction of defendant no. 3. It was also alleged that the plaintiff was never intimated regarding the entry of adverse possession. The suit was contested by defendant no. 3, Badri, alleging that the plaintiff had no concern with the land in suit and was never in possession thereof and had lost his rights and title in view of provisions of section 210, that he was in adverse possession over to land in suit, and that there was family settlement by which land in dispute was sirdari of defendant no. 3. Badri, defendant no. 3, also filed a suit no 79/234 in respect of these plots for declaration of his sirdari rights under section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951, alleging that he had been in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute since prior to abolition of Zamindari and continued possession as such, and that Baijnath was never in possession of the land, and on the basis of adverse possession he had become sirdar of the land in suit. The suit was contested by Baijnath alleging that he was in cultivatory possession over the land in suit since before the abolition of Zumindari and in certain khatas he was jointly in possession along with Badri, and that no P.A. 10 slip was ever issued to him. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial court, and decided by a common judgment dated 23-5-80, by which the suit of Baijnath was decreed. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the appeal on 12-6-84. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the order in suit filed by Badri became final as no appeal had been preferred against the decree passed in that suit and the appeal was barred by the principles of res judicata. The learned Additional Commissioner, relying on AIR 1963 Alld 210, dismissed the appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was no judgment in the eye of law, that the trial court misinterpreted the decision in reaching its conclusion, that the Additional Commissioner wrongly relied on the ruling of res judicata because it was not applicable to the present case as two cases were decreed by common judgment, finding and issues, and that in the instant case the principles of res judicata were not applicable, relying 1974 RD (Supp) 158 : AIR 1953 SC 419 and AIR 1969 Alld 504. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that though both the suits were decided by a common judgment, separate decrees were prepared and as appeal was filed against one decree, hence the other decree became final and this would operate as res judicata against the appeal filed against the other decree namely in toe suit filed by Baijnath. He placed reliance on AIR 1963 Alld 210 (FB), AIR 1960 SC 941 and 1974 RD (Supp) 241. 7. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, laying down the principles of res judicata, reads as under : "11. He placed reliance on AIR 1963 Alld 210 (FB), AIR 1960 SC 941 and 1974 RD (Supp) 241. 7. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, laying down the principles of res judicata, reads as under : "11. No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issues, former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, limiting under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has heard and finally decided by such Court. From the plain reading of Section 11 it is evident that where between the same parties any matter has been finally decided, the same question cannot be raised afterwards by the parties. The words finally decided by such Court are very relevant and of an important import. This section 11 does not mention the word 'decree'. In "Jai Narain v. Bulequi Das" (AIR 1969 Alld 504), a full Bench decision, the application of bar of res judicata has been fully explained. In the said decision, their Lordships held that if the suits were consolidated and disposed of by one judgment and two decrees were prepared, and if no appeal was filed against the decree in one suit, an appeal against the order was not barred by res judicata on the ground that the matter was sub-judice or on the ground that the Judgment by which the suits were decided were not finally decided as the common judgment was sub-judice in appeal. Their Lordships held in para 18 of their decision that as the words "has been heard and finally decided by such Court" in section 11 C. P. C. would show it is a decision which not speak of a decree at all". 8. In the instant case, the judgment in the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner was put in jeopardy and that judgment of the trial court cannot operate as res judicata. Before the provisions of Section 11 C. P. C. are made applicable, the matter in controversy must have been finally decided by the Court concerned. Since the matter was sub-judice in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner it cannot be said that the matter had been finally decided. 9. Before the provisions of Section 11 C. P. C. are made applicable, the matter in controversy must have been finally decided by the Court concerned. Since the matter was sub-judice in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner it cannot be said that the matter had been finally decided. 9. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in AIR 1963 Alld 210 (FB) has been considered and distinguished by their Lordships in their decision reported in AIR 1969 All 504 (FB). The another decision cited by him in AIR 1960 SC 941 concerns only with an interlocutory order of remand by which their Lordships held that the matter was not finally decided and hence the question of res judicata was held by their Lordships as not applicable in that case. The decision reported in 1974 R.D. (Supp.) 241 is also distinguishable. In that case the trial court decided two suits having common case on merits and two appeals were filed, one appeal was dismissed and the other appeal was accepted. Only one second appeal was filed. Since no second appeal was filed against the other order of the lower appellate court, that order of the lower appellate court became final between the parties. Here, in the instant case, this is not so. In the instant case only one appeal was tiled before the learned Additional Commissioner by which the order of the trial court was challenged. In view of this, this decision also is of no help to the respondent. 10. In view of this, I am of the view that the appeal filed before the learned Additional Commissioner was maintainable. Consequently, this second appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 12-6-84 is set aside, and the matter is sent back to the learned Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal on merits according to law.