JUDGMENT 1. - The only question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether the decision in a writ petition operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed on the same cause of action ? 2. This question emerges in the following circumstances- (a) The plaintiffs non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff), way back in the year 1980 instituted a suit against the defendant petitioner (for short the defendant) in the trial court seeking declaration that he he reinstated with all consequential benefits to the post of he held before termination as the order of termination was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The defendant filed written statement raising certain preliminary objection which include the objection that suit was barred by the principles of res judicata as the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit were already declined by the High Court and the Supreme Court. (b) The trial court took twelve years time in framing the issues. Thereafter the defendant on October 8, 1994 moved an application for deciding the issues No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as preliminary under Order 14 Rules 2 CPC. (c) the learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated April 6, 1995. Against this order that the action for filing the revision has been resorted to be the defendant. 3. Mr. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his arguments only to the findings of issue No. 4 which relate to objection of res judicata. 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 229/77 filed by the plaintiff was decided by this court on November 9, 1977. It was observed by this court that- ...........if petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned order, the only course left open to him is to invoke the civil jurisdiction of competent court. In support of this preliminary objection reliance has been placed on a Patna case.......... In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party succeeds and the writ petition, is therefore, dismissed summarily. I need not discuss other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner because preliminary objection prevails. The petition, is dismissed summarily." 5. D.B. Special Appeal as well as Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court preferred against the order of Single Bench, were also dismissed. 6. I need not discuss other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner because preliminary objection prevails. The petition, is dismissed summarily." 5. D.B. Special Appeal as well as Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court preferred against the order of Single Bench, were also dismissed. 6. Union of India v. Nanak Singh, ( AIR 1968 SC 1370 ) was the case where the Supreme Court observed that "there is no good reason to preclude decisions on matter in controversy in writ proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution from operating as res judicata in subsequent regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same parties and thus to give limited effect to the principle of finality of decision after full contest." (Emphasis supplied) 7. Ratio of Union of India v. Nanak Singh (supra) was echoed in the State of Punjab v. Bua Das Kaushal, ( AIR 1971 SC 1676 ) . 8. In U.O.I. v. Krishnaswamy, (AIR 1996 Madras 238) suit for declaration challenging the award of Land Acquisition Officer was filed concealing the decision of earlier writ petition. It was held by the Madras High Court that suit was not maintainable being hit by principle of res judicata. 9. But in Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal, ( 1989 (3) SCC 433 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus- "It thus becomes clear that when a writ petition after contest is disposed of on merits by a speaking order, the question decided in that petition would operate as res judicata, but not a dismissal in limine or dismissal on the ground of laches or availability of alternative remedy." (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the case on hand the writ petition was not disposed of on merits. It was observed by this court that if petitioner felt aggrieved by the impugned order he could invoke the civil jurisdiction of competent court. The preliminary objection raised by the defendant was allowed and writ petition was dismissed summarily. Therefore decision in the writ petition did not operate res judicata in a subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff on the same cause of action. 11. The preliminary objection raised by the defendant was allowed and writ petition was dismissed summarily. Therefore decision in the writ petition did not operate res judicata in a subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff on the same cause of action. 11. 1 am not impressed by the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the considered view that the learned court below did not commit jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order and if the order is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. 12. In the result the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. As the suit is pending since 1980, .1 direct the trial court to dispose it of within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Costs easy.Revision Dismissed. *******