A suit was filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction. The defendant filed written statement and urged that the suit is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The trial Court took up the issue of constructive res judicata as a preliminary issue and held that the suit is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. There was an appeal and that also was dismissed affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants submits that res judicata is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and facts inasmuch as provided under section 11 of CPC. In order to satisfy the requirement of res judicata, the following things are necessary : (i) Identity of matter in issue, ie the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit either actually (Explanation 3) or constructively (Explanation 4). The subject matter and the causes of actions of the two suits may be different but the issues may be the same. Explanation III refers to direct res judicata and Explanation IV to constructive res judicata. It is not necessary that a distinct issue should be raised. It is sufficient if the matter was in issue in substance. (ii) Identify of parties, ie the former suit must have been between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim (Explanation VI) (iii) Same title - the parties in the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title in the former suit. (iv) Concurrence of jurisdiction - The Court which decided the former suit must have been competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which issue has been subsequently raised (Explanation II). New Explanation VIII has widened the scope of section 11 by doing away with the requirement as to concurrence of jurisdiction as to pecuniary limits in both the suits. (v) Final decision - The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided in the former suit (Explanation V). 4. New Explanation VIII has widened the scope of section 11 by doing away with the requirement as to concurrence of jurisdiction as to pecuniary limits in both the suits. (v) Final decision - The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided in the former suit (Explanation V). 4. So, in order to satisfy all these things, there would be necessity of evidence and usually by framing the preliminary issue, a Court should not take evidence by way of installments. If any authority is required for this proposition one may have a look at (1998) 8 SCC 623 (Lufthansa German Airlines vs. VU Sales Corporation) wherein the question of limitation was decided as a preliminary issue and in that process the matter continued for a long 14 years from one Court to other Court and ultimately the matter reached the Apex Court and the Apex Court in para 4 of the judgment has pointed out as follows : “The learned counsel appearing for the respondent took an objection that the learned Judge should not have decided the question of limitation as a preliminary issue, especially when that question did not arise, merely on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. This Court has pointed out the undesirability of deciding a suit on a preliminary issue. This Court has also insisted that normally all issues should be decided while disposing of the suit. The amendment introduced in Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1976, also provides that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, pronounce the judgment on all issues. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV is an exception where a suit can be disposed of on the question of law only.” 5. This being the position, this second appeal is allowed and the judgments of both the Courts below are quashed and set aside. The matter now shall go back to the trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible. The parties shall appear before the trial Court ie, Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Karimganj on 29.4.1999 to receive further instruction in the matter.