J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of OS No.1239/2003 by judgment dt. 30-11-2004 pursuant to the orders passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District dt. 30-11-2004 in IA INo.36/2004. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the above suit for declaration that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property i.e, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.20-29 guntas in S.No.293; Ac.20-12 guntas in S.No.294 and Ac.13-15 guntas in S.No.295 situate at Ravalkole village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On receipt of the summons, the defendants 1 to 5 filed IA No.36/2004 under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w 151 CPC to reject the plaint as barred by law contending that one Mallaiah as sole plaintiff filed OS No.150/96 against them and others for permanent injunction before the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal in respect of the very same property alleging that he purchased the said property by oral sale and claiming possession. He also pleaded that he perfected his title by prescription. Since Mallaiah who is common ancestor of the plaintiffs died and he did not seek declaration of title, the plaintiffs filed IA No.201/2003 for amendment of plaint seeking the relief of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. Defendants 1 to 5 herein denied title. The said IA was dismissed as barred by limitation. Against which, the plaintiffs carried the matter in revision to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRP No.1597/2003, which was also dismissed holding that the relief claimed is barred by limitation. Therefore, the plaintiffs are disentitle to claim the said relief which is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and is liable to be rejected. The plaintiffs opposed the said IA. Therefore, the plaintiffs are disentitle to claim the said relief which is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and is liable to be rejected. The plaintiffs opposed the said IA. The learned trial judge allowed IA holding that the present suit is barred by res judicata and estoppel by record observing that a reading of the averments made in the plaint discloses plaintiffs earlier filed suit before the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants and in which injunction obtained by them in IA No.609/96 has been vacated on appeal and their filing IA No.201/2003 for amendment of the plaint to seek declaration of title was dismissed and its dismissal was confirmed by the High Court in CRP No. 1579/2003 and it was not the case of the plaintiffs that they have withdrawn the suit with the permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit and accordingly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). On allowing IA, consequently the suit was dismissed. Against which, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants contends that earlier CRP No. 1579/2003 was dismissed on the ground that the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration of title basing upon the subsequent events is not maintainable but not on the ground of limitation. Though trial court dismissed IA as barred by limitation, High Court has not gone into said aspect. He further contends that it is not open for the court to decide the point as to whether the dispute raised in the plaint was substantially in issue in the previous suit and hence hit by res judicata, at the stage of numbering the suit and that it is an issue to be decided during the course of trial. He further contends that the rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the Jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit, which can be decided on proving of certain facts and issue framed in that regard. For the said preposition, he relied upon the following decisions: 1.V. RAJESHWARI V. T.C. SARA-VANABAVA(1). 2. JUGAL KISUORE LOYA V. HANUMAN PRASAD SONI(2). He further contends that if at all qeustion whether the suit is hit by res judicata has to be adjudicated as a preliminary issue but plaint cannot be rejected. For the said preposition, he relied upon the following decisions: 1.V. RAJESHWARI V. T.C. SARA-VANABAVA(1). 2. JUGAL KISUORE LOYA V. HANUMAN PRASAD SONI(2). He further contends that if at all qeustion whether the suit is hit by res judicata has to be adjudicated as a preliminary issue but plaint cannot be rejected. He further contends that even if the suit OS.No.150/96 is dismissed on merits, the plaintiffs are not precluded to file subsequent suit, which can be decided only after necessary issues are framed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting’ the dismissal of IA and suit contended that the present case falls under explanation (v)to section II CPC and relief of declaration which was sought by amending the plaint was rejected earlier on the sole ground that it was barred by limitation and same will operate as res judicate. For the said proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1.SALEEM BHAI AND OTHERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (3). 2. POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY V. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASOCIATION(4). 3.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY V. C.R. RAMANATHAM (5). 5. The submissions of the learned counsel will have to be considered in the light of the averments made in the plaint alone. In para 7 of the plaint, it is specifically averred that the plaintiff No.1 and Mallaiah and their family members have been in possession of the suit land since 1964 by oral sale and in any case, acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession as against the defendants 1 to 5, therefore, they filed IA No.201/2003 in OS No.150/1996 for amendment of the plaint by seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land. The said application was dismissed, which was confirmed in CRP No. 1579/2003 and they are advised to institute a fresh suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction by withdrawing OS No.150/1996. Hence the above suit. 6. Under Order VII Rule II CPC the court can exercise the power to reject the suit at any stage of the suit, before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 7 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 7 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Plaint must be rejected without calling upon the parties to undergo regular process of trial and by calling upon the defendant to have written statement provided averments made in the plaint explicitly discloses that the suit is barred by the provisions of any law but not otherwise. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the suit, as such was ordered to be rejected by allowing IA filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the earlier IA filed for amending the plaint seeking relief of declaration of title was dismissed, which was confirmed by the High Court in the revision will operate as res judicata and estoppel by record and suit cannot be sustained. 8. Explanation V to Section 11 CPC, on which much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the respondents, read as under : “RES JUDICATA: No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raise, and has been heard and finally Court. Explanation I to II: x xx Explanation V: Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI to VIII: x x x.” 9. The Supreme Court in the case of V. RAJESHWARI (1 supra) held that the rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. The plea of res judicata is founded on proof of certain facts and then by applying law to the facts so found. It is, therefore, necessary that the foundation for the plea must be laid in the pleadings and then an issue must be framed and tried. The plea of res judicata is founded on proof of certain facts and then by applying law to the facts so found. It is, therefore, necessary that the foundation for the plea must be laid in the pleadings and then an issue must be framed and tried. A plea not properly raised in the pleadings or in issues at the stage of trial, would not be permitted to raise for the first time at the stage of appeal. 10. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in the case of SALEEM BHAI AND OTHERS (3 supra) and this court in C.R.RAMANATHAM (5 supra) that the trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit, before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under Clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC the averments in the plaint must alone be the basis for exercise of power but not the conclusions that may be interpretatively drawn on an examination of the statutory provisions alluded to in the plaint. Where there is no such explicit statement in the plaint the question whether there is any legal barricade to the suit must be tried as an issue at the appropriate stage. By adopting such procedure alone, the interests of both the parties can be safeguarded. 11. This court dismissed CRP No. 1579/2003 which was filed against IA filed for amendment of the plaint, on the ground that amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration of title basing on the subsequent events is not maintainable but not on the ground of barred by limitation and the pleadings, as referred to above do not explicitly indicate that the earlier IA was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the plaintiffs cannot seek a declaration of title based on adverse possession. 12. It is well settled that plea of res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact, which has to be adjudicated based upon the pleadings and evidence adduced. If the evidence adduced by the parties is sufficient to decide the said issue, it is always open for the parties to insist the court that said issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue. If the evidence adduced by the parties is sufficient to decide the said issue, it is always open for the parties to insist the court that said issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue. The averments in the plaint without addition or subtraction must show that it is barred by any law to attract the application of Order 7 Rule 11. Therefore, allowing IA holding that plaint is to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) as barred by res judicata and estoppel by record and consequential dismissal of suit cannot be sustainable and the same is accordingly set-aside. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties are at liberty to raise all defences, which are available under the Code of Civil Procedure and on raising such defences trial court has to proceed in accordance with the law. No costs. --X—