JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.08.2005 whereby Issue No.4 - whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD - was treated as a preliminary issue. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that decree dated 10.12.1996, passed in Civil Suit No. 227 of 21.5.1988 titled Sampuran Singh etc versus Ranjit Singh etc and affirmed by this Court while dismissing second appeal on 17.01.2000, is illegal, null and void having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff. 3. The petitioner is none else but son of defendant Ranjit Singh in the previous suit and was a party in the previous suit, though as minor. Having remained unsuccessful in the previous proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present suit. 4. It is the stand of the defendant in the written statement that Sampuran Singh, father of defendant Randhir Singh, filed a suit for possession on 21.05.1998 which was decreed by the trial Court on 10.12.1996. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff, his father Ranjit Singh, mother Sudarshan Kaur and brother Harinderpal Singh. The said appeal was dismissed on 5.8.1999. Second appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging that at the time of filing of previous suit, the plaintiff was a minor and his father was pursuing that case. It is alleged that due to negligence of defendant No.9 i.e., his father, a decree was passed against the plaintiff. 5. The learned trial Court has ordered Issue No.4 to be created as a preliminary issue on the ground that the petitioner has filed objections to the decree affirmed by this Court and since such objections have been dismissed, an independent suit is not maintainable. Once a decree has been passed in a suit in which the plaintiff is a party and that objections in execution of the said decree have been dismissed, I do not find that there is any illegality to decide the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue. Such decisions in the proceedings between the parties would be relevant to determine whether the present suit is maintainable and, therefore, there is no illegality in treating such issue as a preliminary issue. 6. Such decisions in the proceedings between the parties would be relevant to determine whether the present suit is maintainable and, therefore, there is no illegality in treating such issue as a preliminary issue. 6. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed in limine.