Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD on admission. ( 2. ) BY the impugned order dated 26-2-2001 passed in C. S. No. 143-A/95 the learned Trial Judge has held that the earlier Civil Suit No. 88-A/87 does not operate as res-judicata within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly the Issue No. 8 was decided as a preliminary issue. The facts of this case disclose that the earlier suit filed by Harnarayan was dismissed as withdrawn as per Annexure A-7 order dated 22-8-87. In this case Harnarayan had filed a suit against Ranchhor, Shivnarayan, Sardar @ Gokul as well as against the State of M. P. for declaration and permanent injunction. In other words, the plaintiff in that suit, Har Narayan, had abandoned his suit without any condition. Such a suit is covered by Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such cases Order XXIII Rule 1 (4) applies which reads as under :-- (4) Where the plaintiff (a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or (b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. It is apparent from the wordings of the rule that a person who has abandoned his suit shall not be allowed to bring a fresh suit. This rule does not operate against the person who claims through the original plaintiff. In the present case, it has been alleged by the applicants that Shyam Kali Bai the present plaintiff is claiming through Harnarayan and, therefore, her suit is barred. This is not so. The principles of Section 11 of CPC do not apply to a situation like this. In Section 11 of CPC, the question of res-judicata comes into play when the suit is finally heard and decided. In such a situation the legal representatives of the person against whom the suit has been decided cannot file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The learned Trial Judge has wrongly considered Section 11 of the CPC for coming to the right conclusion. ( 3. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the revision has no force. It is dismissed. ( 4. The learned Trial Judge has wrongly considered Section 11 of the CPC for coming to the right conclusion. ( 3. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the revision has no force. It is dismissed. ( 4. ) A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Judge immediately. ( 5. ) M. (C) P. 2118/2001 is also dismissed as it has become infructuous. C. C. as per rules.