T. SHANKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been preferred against tbe order dated 9-5-94 whereby the learned Court below has disposed of an application under O. 7 R. 11 CPC and rejected it. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated the facts are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff Pretam Singh Gulati for declaration to tbe effect that he was the owner in possession of tbe property in dispute and tbe defendants had no right to challenge his right. A relief for permanent injunction was also claimed. It was alleged that Rasbtriya Adarsh Grih Nirman Sabkari Sanstha Maryadit is a registered society and he was its member. His mother, Smt Chatur Kaur Gnlati, was also a member of the society. A plot of land was allotted to her on 20-5-70 which was in his possession. He came to know that the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell tbe said property to one one Suresh Sbarma. Hence the suit was filed. The suit was contested. During the pendency of the suit the present revisionists applied for being impleaded as a party and they were addad as a party. An application was moved under O. 7 R, II CPC by the revisionists for rejection of the plaint as the suit was barred by provisions of Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which has been rejected by the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists contended that the learned court below had no jusis diction to proceed with the case as tbe suit was barred under Section 64/82 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The plaint to have been rejected. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 1, who bas alone contested the petition, contended that the matter was raised at the time of hearing of application for temporary injunction and the learned trial Conrt held that the suit was not so barred. Consequently it cannot now be raised. He also urged that no written statement bas been filed by tbe revisionists so far In case the revisionists want to raise this question they should have raised this in written statement and the learned trial Court should have framed a preliminary issue and decided. In this connection tbe learned Counsel relied upon 1987, II MPWN-Note 249 and 1991 R. N. 81. In this connection tbe learned Counsel relied upon 1987, II MPWN-Note 249 and 1991 R. N. 81. ( 5 ) I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through tbe two order passed by the lower Court earlier dated 8-2-93 and 8-4-93- These orders were passed on an application under O. 7 R. II CPC. It is true that the question relating to the applicability of these two sections, i. e. 64/82 of the Co-operative societies Act was raised and the learned Court observed that prima facie these provisions did not apoly. I may mention here that it is settled law that any decision even on interlocutory matters if it is heard and finally decided it operates as res judicata in tbe same suit at a later stage. But tbe matter has not been heard and finally decided, it can certainly be said that it does not operate as res Judicata. In the present case in both tbe aforesaid orders the Court did not decide finally the said question. In this view of the matter the observations made in the two orders cannot be said to amount to a final decision on the point canvassed. It could not. therefore, operate as a res judicata. A perusal of the impugne order shows that the learned court below observed that this point was decided while disposing of the application for temporary injunction on 8-2-93 and on this basis it rejected the application, As said earlier the observation made in the disposal pf the application under Order 39 Rule 1 cannot operate as res judleata. The matter was open to be decided. The learned Court ought to have applied its own mind and decided the question on its own merits but unfortunately it has not been done. In the light of the view taken in the aforesaid authority /. e. 1987, II, mpwn-Note 249, I think the proper course is that the revisions should file written statement. In case they choose may take a plea in this regard. In case a plea is taken. the learned trial Court should frame a preliminary issue on this point and decide it on merits after hearing the parties. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be allowed to be sustained. ( 6 ) THE revision petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In case a plea is taken. the learned trial Court should frame a preliminary issue on this point and decide it on merits after hearing the parties. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be allowed to be sustained. ( 6 ) THE revision petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It may be observed that any observation in the disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 in this regard will have no bearing and the Court has to decide the 'matter after it has been raised in the written statement on its merits. Revision petition allowed. .