This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.2.93 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc (J) Case No. 10 of 1993. The appeal has been filed by the defendant. 2. Both the defendant and the plaintiff are co-operative societies and the dispute is regarding the settlement of fishery, namely, Fishery No. 1 Chaulkhowa Fishery which was settled directly by the Govt. under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries. 1953 as amended. These Rules were framed under sections 155 and 156 of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897. According to the plaintiff-respondent the settlement in favour of defendant is bad in law and accordingly prayed for a decree for declaration that the plaintiff society is entitled to get settlement of the said fishery and for a declaration that the judgment dated 28.1.93 passed in Civil Rule No.2620 of 1992 by this Court is bad in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their employees to give effect to the order of settlement No. FISH/42/85/270 dated 1.12.92. 3. It may be stated that in the suit State of Assam, Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam and Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta were also made defendants. By the impugned order the learned trial Court was of the opinion that "there might be questions of law under the provision of the North Eastern Region Fishery Act and Rules, Indian fishery Act, Assam Land Revenue Regulation etc. with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction of the civil Court. However the petition appears to be of urgent and immediate nature". In view of the above observation and other findings, the learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the fishery in question. From the said order it appears that plaintiff was prevented from fishing in the fishery in question. 4. Considering the fact that this relates to settlement of fishery and in view of the various earlier orders passed by this Court, it was decided to dispose of the matter at the admission stage. It may be stated that the above order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge was also stayed by this Court on 17.2.93. 5. Heard Mr. DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. It may be stated that the above order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge was also stayed by this Court on 17.2.93. 5. Heard Mr. DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. CK Sarma Baruah for the respondent. 6. The following questions are to be decided in the case in hand, namely, (i) whether the plaintiff has been able to make out a case for temporary injection; (ii) whether the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred in respect of the present fishery, and (iii) whether the present suit is barred by res judicata. The learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 7. The settled position of law regarding granting of injunction is that the plaintiff has to make out a prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. In the impugned order except the fact that the question to be decided regarding maintainability of the suit, the learned trial Court did not apply its mind regarding balance of convenience and irreparable loss. On that ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. I find that after the order of settlement was passed in favour of the respondent No. 4 on 1.12.92, a lease deed was executed between respon­dent No. 4 and the Deputy Commissioner which is available at Annexure I to the memo of appeal. Thereafter, on 2.1.93 the Circle Officer of the Revenue Circle handed over the possession of the fishery to the respondent No. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant after possession was taken over, the fishery is being operated by the respondent No. 4. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite p.urty and according to the learned counsel the plaintiff who was earlier settlement holder made some constructions which are still intact. In my opinion, as the fishery was handed over on 2.1.93 and the injunction order was passed on 14.2.93, ie. after 1 month it would cause inconvenience and irreparable loss to the defendant co-operative society if the injunction is granted. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. According to Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent the defendant could have filed objection before the trial Court for getting the order set aside instead of approaching this Court. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. According to Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent the defendant could have filed objection before the trial Court for getting the order set aside instead of approaching this Court. But as the plaintiff has got the right of appeal merely because the trial Court was not approached I cannot wash off my hand in respect of the present injunction order. 10. Now the next question is whether the civil Court has got jurisdiction in respect of any settlement order made under the above Fishery Rules. These Fishery Rules were framed under sections 155 and 156 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and also under section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897. I need not refer the provisions of the Indian Fisheries Act for the present purpose. Under clause (f) of the above section 155, the Govt. can frame Rules to fish in fishery proclaimed under section 16. Therefore, the present Fishery Rules are within the powers of the State Govt. Section 16 of the said Regulation is regarding right in fishery. The said section inter alia provides that Deputy Commissioner with the previous sanction of the State Govt. by proclamation declare any collection of water, running or still to be a fishery and no right in any fishery so declared shall be deemed to have been acquired by the public or any other person except as provided in the Rules made under section 155. The proviso to the said section empowered the State Govt. to grant a right to fish or any fishery right in respect of any fishery. Therefore, unless a settlement is obtained under the Fishery Rules, 1953, no person can fish in any fishery declared under section 16 of the Regulation, Section 154 of the above Regulation, 1886 inter alia provides that except where otherwise expressly provided in the Regulations or Rules framed there­under no civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the matters mentioned in clause (a) to clause (n). Reading clause (a) I find that civil Court shall have no right to question as to the validity of fact of any settlement or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force. Reading clause (a) I find that civil Court shall have no right to question as to the validity of fact of any settlement or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force. I have no hesitation in holding after reading the relevant provisions of the Regulation, 1886 and the Settlement of Fisheries Rules, 1953 that settlement of fishery is covered by the above clause (a), Therefore, the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred in respect of any settlement granted under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, 1953. I accordingly hold that the present suit is not maint­ainable in view of expressed prohibition contained in the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 11. Let me now consider the next question of res judicata. In respect of the present settlement the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Civil Rule No 2241 of 1992 and disposed of by order dated 25.11.92. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was pre-mature as no order of settlement was issued by the Govt. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing another writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was regi­stered as Civil Rule No. 2620 of 1992. By order dated 18.12.92, the status quo order passed in the said petition on 3.12.92 was vacated on the ground that the respondent No. 4 in that petition who is the appellant herein was having a settlement order. This petition was disposed of finally by order dated 28.1.93 by holding that the impugned order was neither malafide nor discriminatory or was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. All these orders have been annexed to the application for stay vide Annexures D, F and G. From the final order, I find that the Court dismissed the petition after examining the relevant records. 12. It has been urged by Mr. CK Sarma Baruah that the Civil Rule No. 2620 of 1992 was dismissed only on the ground that the present respondent who was the petitioner was a defaulter to the extent of Rs. 3 lacs, though the respondent No. 4 in that petition, namely, the appellant herein was defaulter for an amount of Rs. 71.000/- which has also been stayed. CK Sarma Baruah that the Civil Rule No. 2620 of 1992 was dismissed only on the ground that the present respondent who was the petitioner was a defaulter to the extent of Rs. 3 lacs, though the respondent No. 4 in that petition, namely, the appellant herein was defaulter for an amount of Rs. 71.000/- which has also been stayed. In view of the statement made in the plaint of the present suit, there are other grounds to be decided, e.g. whether the appellant society is composed of actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Castes Community and residing in the neighbourhood etc. 13. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Baruah as all the points could have been raised in the writ petition. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in fact all these points were raised in the writ petition and on the record, the Court was satisfied that the settlement order was validly and legally passed. Regarding the allegation that members of the appellant co-operative society are not actual fishermen and do not belong to Scheduled Caste Community, some papers have been submitted at the time of argument and I need not consider this point on the simple ground that plaintiff/respondent could have raised all the points before this Court in the writ petition. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Baruah has no force. 14. In support of the contention that the present petition is not hit by res judicata, Mr. Baruah has placed reliance in a decision of the Apex Court with the Workmen of Cochin Port Trust vs. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & another, ATR 1978 SC 1283. In paragraph 8 of the judgment it was held that if by any judgment and order any matter in a suit directly and explicitly decided the decision operates as res judicata and bars the trial of an identical issue in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. In this connection, Mr. Baruah has also urged that what was decided by this Court in the last writ petition was regarding the question of defaulter and not any other matters. In my opinion, that is not so as the Court after perusal of the record clearly held that the impugned settlement order was not void. 15. Mr. In this connection, Mr. Baruah has also urged that what was decided by this Court in the last writ petition was regarding the question of defaulter and not any other matters. In my opinion, that is not so as the Court after perusal of the record clearly held that the impugned settlement order was not void. 15. Mr. Choudhury has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 10 of the said judgment, wherein the Apex Court referred to an earlier decision reported in AIR 1961 SC 1457 . The Supreme Court held that where the High Court dismissed a writ petition after hearing the matter on the merits on the ground that no fundamental right was violated or contravened a subsequent petition to the Apex Court under Article 32 on the same fact and for the same reliefs filed by the same party would be barred by the general principles of res judicata. 16. Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance in a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Nanak Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1370 . In paragraphs of the said judgment the Apex Court referred to an earlier decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 1153 and held that the provision of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not exhaustive with respect to an earlier decision operating as res judicata between the same parties on the same matter in controversy in a subsequent regular suit. It was further held that there is no good reason to preclude such decisions on matters in contro­versy in writ proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution from operating as res judicata in subsequent regular suit on the same matters in controversy between the same parties. 17. Situated thus, I hold that if a writ petition whether filed under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution is decided on the merit, a civil suit is barred on the same cause of action. In the present case in hand what this Court decided was that the settlement of the fishery in favour of respondent No.4 was valid and legal and therefore, civil Court can not sit over the judgment of this Court for deciding the matter whether the said settlement order is valid or not. Therefore, the present suit is barred by res judicata. 18. Mr. Therefore, the present suit is barred by res judicata. 18. Mr. Choudhury has also placed reliance in a decision of the Apex Court in T. Arivandandam vs. TV Satyapal & another, (1977) 1 SCC 467, wherein the Apex Court expressed strong views regarding litigation in respect of same matter. It is not necessary to quote the relevant portion. 19. I am surprised to find the plaint in the present suit and also the prayer. The plaint is at Annexure L to the stay petition filed by the appellant and I quote below the paragraph 22 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff has inter alia stated that this Court passed the order dated 28.1.93 on some extraneous consideration. The said paragraph runs as follows : "That the plaintiff begs to state that against the settlement order dated 1.12.92 the plaintiff moved a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.1.93 dismissed the plaintiff's writ petition which was numbered as Civil Rule. No. 2620/92. The Hon'­ble High Court passed an order dated 28.1.93 on some extraneuous consideration contending that the plaintiff society is defaulter society. The order of the High Court is erroneous apparent on the face of the record and as perverse one as the Hon'ble High Court pass this order without any material facts of records and as such the order of the High Court is not sustainable in law and is not binding upon the plaintiff." 20. I am shocked to see that such statement can be made against the order passed by this Court before subordinate Court. I have already referred to prayer No.3 in the plaint praying for a decree quashing the order passed by this Court on 28.1.93 in Civil Rule No. 2620 of 1992. I must record here that Mr. Baruah, who represents the respondent, has fairly stated that the above prayer ought not to have been made before the trial Court. 21. Be that as it may, in view of the above paragraphs and the statement made in the prayer of the plaint, I am of the opinion that the impugned ex-parte order of status quo was passed by Mr. UC Gogoi, Assistant District Judge, No.2 Guwahati without any application of mind. In fact the Court should have rejected the plaint at initial stage. UC Gogoi, Assistant District Judge, No.2 Guwahati without any application of mind. In fact the Court should have rejected the plaint at initial stage. I express my unhappiness regarding the conduct of the Officer and I direct Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the displeasure of this Court to the Officer wherever he is posted. It may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as it may be a fit case to record in his Annual Confidential Report. 22. Situated thus, the appeal is allowed. Learned Assistant District Judge No. 2 is directed to dismiss the suit as it is not maintainable and also barred by res judicata.