JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Without going into the details of the fact of the case, it may be stated that there was a dispute over the purchase, possession, issuance of LSC and also boundary of the land amongst the husband of the present appellant (since deceased) and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. A spot verification was made on 20.3.1985 and on the basis of the spot verification report, an executive order was passed on 8.4.1985 by the Director, Land Revenue and Settlement, Aizawl (respondent No. 3), the operative portion of which reads as under: Therefore, the present boundary pillar between Mr. Zahminga and Mr. T. Mama may be shifted by 2 ft. towards the compound of Mr. T. Mawia and the same must be accepted by both of them. If Mr. T. Mama's area is measured correctly then in that case Mr. Mawia will have a very small plot of land and his kitchen may also have to be dismantled as well. Therefore, Mr. Zahminga is requested to accept the same in good faith and he has also accepted the same. Now, therefore, their boundaries are to be made as per the above discussion and measurement of their respective lands as well as their Pattas are to be corrected. Moreover, as soon as the land of Zahminga is measured, he may be issued LSC. That due to the said dispute, Mr. Zahminga could not make his land patta for a long time. The copy of the said order was communicated to the parties concerned including the respondent No. 5. No grievance was made by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the said executive order passed by the respondent No. 3/Director of Land Revenue and Settlement, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl. In other words, it was not challenged by the respondents aforesaid and it was accepted to be final and binding on the parties concerned. The respondent No. 5 filed a Misc. Case No. 8 of 1985 before the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl for declaration of his Land Settlement Certificate ('LSC') No. 711 of 1973 as he obtained the same bona fide as he was in possession of the land in question. The learned Magistrate 1st Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl passed judgment and order dated 13.9.1985 declaring the LSC No. 711 of 1973 as valid and genuine. The learned Magistrate 1st Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl passed judgment and order dated 13.9.1985 declaring the LSC No. 711 of 1973 as valid and genuine. The full text of the said judgment and order is reproduced hereunder: JUDGMENT ORDER 13.9.1985: This is a title suit filed by the plaintiff Thanmawia for declaration of his LSC No. 711 of 1973 as his bona fide possession as the pass obtained by him is obtained in due course of law. The plaintiff Thanmawia purchased a plot of land from the defendant Zahmingthanga and a Pass No. 82/1964 was issued to the Plaintiff under Memo No. ER.1/AS/64/3563-7 dated 19.3.1964 by the erstwhile Mizo District Council. He then obtained LSC No. 711 of 1973 and lived without disturbed by his neighbour. The defendant Zahmingthanga for more than 20(twenty) years. In this connection, the Magistrate, Addl. Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl directed her assistant to verify the side in dispute on the spot. The assistant reported that the defendant Zahmingthanga still has land much wider than the area of his House Pass No. 94 of 1968. Under circumstances, facts in issue and also evidence on records, I have no hesitation in my mind to declare the LSC No. 711 of 1973 as valid and genuine pass of the bona fide possession by the plaintiff Thanmawia as the Pass is obtained by him in due course of law. Sd-/R.L. Salianthanga Magistrate 1st Class, Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl. 2. It is not reflected in the said order as to whether the present appellant was given notice and opportunity of hearing. However, the present appellant preferred an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13.9.1985, which was registered as CA 29 of 1985. By a judgment dated 19.6.1986, the learned lower appellate court upheld the same. The text of the judgment dated 19.6.1986 is reproduced below: JUDGMENT CA. 29 OF 1985 19.6.1986: Having been aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl regarding the boundary dispute between Thangduhi and Thanmawia, Tlangduhi preferred has an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl. The main ground of Tlangduhi is that Thanmawia had purchased her land and made Patta secretly in the Revenue Department for more than his area. Therefore, she must get her area back. The main ground of Tlangduhi is that Thanmawia had purchased her land and made Patta secretly in the Revenue Department for more than his area. Therefore, she must get her area back. Thanmawia stated that he has purchased land from Tlangduhi and its frontage being 30 ft. and 60 ft. in depth and the Pass was also made. That in the year 1968, before making of such Pass, Zahminga husband of Tlangduhi made a Pass and Thanmawia has just snatched some portion of it. That after doing spot verification regarding the said dispute, we do not find that Thanmawia has taken any extra land and moreover, since a jeep road has been constructed through his area, his area has been narrowed more at the bottom. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong in the order passed by the Magistrate, Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl and we upheld the same 3. The entire matter took different turn when the present appellant filed a declaratory suit before the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl Distirct, Aizawl, which was registered as D.S. No. 10 of 2002 for declaring the order passed by the defendant No. 3 (present respondent No. 3), Director of Land Revenue and Settlement on 8.4 1985 as valid and be implemented. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 and 6 filed written statements contending, inter alia, that the declaratory suit is barred by the principle of res judicata inasmuch as after the executive order dated 8.4.1985 passed by the respondent-director, the Title Suit filed by the respondent No. 5 in respect of the same subject matter against the plaintiff's husband who was alive at that time and the said Title Suit was decided by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class of Subordinate District Council Court in favour of plaintiff (respondent No. 5 in the present case) after arriving at a conclusion that he (respondent No. 5) have been enjoying peaceful possession of his plot of land undisturbed by his neighbour Zahmingthanga (husband of the present appellant) for more than 20 years. 4. The learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Subordinate District Council Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 29.3.2004 holding that the judgment and order dated 13.9.1985 passed by the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl in Misc. 4. The learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Subordinate District Council Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 29.3.2004 holding that the judgment and order dated 13.9.1985 passed by the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1985 and judgment dated 19.6.1986 passed by the District Council Court in CA 29 of 1985 by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl operate as res judicata between the parties. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.3.2004, the present appellant preferred an appeal namely, RFA No. 6 of 2004 in the Court of the Addl. District Magistrate (J), Aizawl and the said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2005. In the said judgment, the learned Addl. District Magistrate (J), Aizawl made no observation or came to a conclusion that the declaratory suit aforesaid was haired by the principle of res judicata. However, in dismissing the appeal, it has been observed as follows: As has already been mentioned above, the respondent No. 5 Thanmawia filed the Title Suit before the Learned Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl in the year 1985 and the suit was decreed in his favour. The present Appellant filed the appeal against the judgment dated 13.9.1985 passed by the Learned Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl and the Appellate District Council Court after having spot verification dismissed the appeal on 19.6.1986. It seems to me that the appellant would have to approach the High Court if she was aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate District Council Court. However, she did not file second appeal. After lapse of more than 10 years from the date of order passed by the District Counsel Court, she filed the present suit before the Lower Court by impleading the State Government and respondent No. 5 as parties. It appears that the appellant filed the present suit impleading the Government and the respondent No. 6 as defendants in order to make the suit different from the suit which was decided in the year 1985 and 86 by the Learned Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl and the Appellate District Council Court respectively. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I hold that there is not any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. 5. I have heard Mr. Zochhuana, Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I hold that there is not any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. 5. I have heard Mr. Zochhuana, Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. H. Dawngliani, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. S.L. Thansanga, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 6. Mr. Zochhuana, Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argues that in the Misc. Case No. 8 of 1985, the plaintiff (present respondent No. 5) did not mention that the executive order dated 8.4.1985 passed by the respondent-Director of Land Revenue and Settlement and obtained the judgment and order dated 13.9.1985 passed by the Subordinate District Council Court were obtained by suppressing facts. The parties in the aforesaid Misc. Case and the declaratory suit are not same and as such, the judgment and orders dated 13.9.1985 and 19.6.1986 mentioned above cannot operate as res judicata and the learned courts below by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dismissed the declaratory suit as well as the RFA. Even assuming, as submitted by Mr. Zochhuana, the principle of res judicata is applied in the present case, it cannot operate against the respondent No. 1 (State) and respondent No. 6 (Mr. Raldotawna @ R.D. Tawna @ Dotawna. 7. Mrs. H. Dawngliani, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the appellant has impleaded the State and its authorities as respondents although they were not necessary parties in the declaratory suit and she has done so only to save herself from the mischief of Section 11 of the CPC. However, according to the learned State Counsel, the issue is same and it was already decided by the Subordinate District Council Court vide judgment and order dated 13.9.1985 and also by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District vide judgment and order dated 19.6.1986. According to her, the learned courts below rightly dismissed the declaratory suit and the appeal applying the principle of res judicata and as such, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Mr. S.L. Thansanga, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 endorses the arguments advanced by the learned State Counsel. According to her, the learned courts below rightly dismissed the declaratory suit and the appeal applying the principle of res judicata and as such, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Mr. S.L. Thansanga, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 endorses the arguments advanced by the learned State Counsel. He, however, submits that Explanation IV to Section11 of the CPC would come into play in the present case. According to him, the present appellant filed the declaratory suit only to harass the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the issue involved has already been decided in the suit (Misc. Case No. 8 of 1985). The litigation in the same issue must end and it cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period as it has caused unnecessary hardship to the parties and as such prays for dismissal of the present appeal as hit by the principle of res judicata. 9. The only point for decision by this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of res judicata as provided under Section 11 of the CPC is applicable and the declaratory suit as well as the appeal were rightly dismissed by the learned Courts below. 10. For the purpose of arriving at a conclusion to the above question, it is necessary to have a look at Section 11 of the CPC. To reproduce the same: 11. 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 raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court. .... Explanation IV-Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. 11. Now, as per the provisions under Section 11 of the CPC, this Court is to refer to "former suit". The former suit in this case is Misc. 11. Now, as per the provisions under Section 11 of the CPC, this Court is to refer to "former suit". The former suit in this case is Misc. Case No. 8 of 1985 filed by the respondent No. 5 wherein, the husband of the present appellant 'was made as party defendant. That was a suit, as observed in the judgment and order dated 13.9.1985, for declaration of plaintiff's (respondent No. 5 in the present appeal) LSC No. 711 of 1973. The State was not impleaded as defendant in the said suit. So the aforesaid former suit was between the respondent No. 5 as plaintiff and appellant as sole defendant. Next question to be examined is the issue involved in the former suit filed by the respondent No. 5 and the present suit, i.e., declaratory suit filed by the present appellant. The present suit of the appellant is admittedly for declaration of the executive order dated 8.4.1985 passed by the Respondent-Director as valid and for implementation thereof. 12. In the executive order dated 8.4.1985, reference has been made to separate house pass issued to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In the facts of the case narrated in the memorandum of appeal, particularly in para 3, it has been stated that the appellant's late husband sold a portion of the land measuring an area of 30 ft. x 69 ft. to Shri T. Mawia (respondent No. 5) but the house pass was not handed over to him and without the knowledge of her late husband, the respondent No. 5 clandestinely made a separate house pass being No. 82 of 1964. Now, if one goes through the judgment and order dated 13.9.1985 passed in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1985, he would find that the plaintiff Thanmawia (present respondent No. 5) purchased a plot of land from the defendant (present appellant's husband) and House Pass No. 82 of 1964 was issued to plaintiff (respondent No. 5) and later on he obtained LSC No. 711 of 1973. That means, House Pass No. 82 of 1964 was converted to LSC No. 711 of 1973. 13. Admittedly, against this judgment and order dated 13.9.1985, the present appellant filed appeal namely, CA 29 of 1985, which was disposed of by upholding the judgment and order dated 13.9.1985. From the aforesaid judgment and order, it is quite clear that the subject-matter and the issue involved are same. 13. Admittedly, against this judgment and order dated 13.9.1985, the present appellant filed appeal namely, CA 29 of 1985, which was disposed of by upholding the judgment and order dated 13.9.1985. From the aforesaid judgment and order, it is quite clear that the subject-matter and the issue involved are same. In both the suits filed by the respondent No. 5 for declaration of LSC No. 711 of 1973 and suit for declaration of executive order dated 8.4.1985 as valid filed by the present appellant are same inasmuch as both the parties in their respective suits sought for declaration of title in respect of land pertaining to House Pass No. 82 of 1964, which was allegedly converted to LSC No. 711 of 1973 by the respondent No. 5 in a clandestine manner. The appellant could not establish or atleast show that the issue raised by the appellant in declaratory suit is merely collateral or incidental to direct and substantive issue in the former suit filed by the respondent No. 5. 14. What is made abundantly clear as discussed above is that the subject matter and the issue involved in the aforesaid former and present suits are same and similar. They are not collateral or incidental. What is collateral or incidental issue has been discussed and explained in Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr.(D) v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 350 . Paras 12 and 14 of the said judgment are relevant and the same are quoted below: 12. It will be noticed that the words used in Section 11 CPC are "directly and substantially in issue". If the matter was in issue directly and substantially in a prior litigation and decided against a party then the decision would be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding. Judicial decisions have, however, held that if a matter was only "collaterally or incidentally" in issue and decided in an earlier proceeding, the finding therein would not ordinarily be res judicata in a latter proceeding where the matter is directly and substantially in issue. .... 14. A collateral or incidental issue is one that is ancillary to a direct and substantive issue; the former is an auxiliary issue and the latter the principal issue. The expression "collaterally or incidentally" in issue implies that there is another matter which is "directly and substantially" in issue - (Mulla's Civil Procedure Code, 15th edn., p. 104). 15. .... 14. A collateral or incidental issue is one that is ancillary to a direct and substantive issue; the former is an auxiliary issue and the latter the principal issue. The expression "collaterally or incidentally" in issue implies that there is another matter which is "directly and substantially" in issue - (Mulla's Civil Procedure Code, 15th edn., p. 104). 15. It has also not been able to satisfy this Court by the appellant that the court in the former proceeding had no jurisdiction so as to save the present suit filed by her from the operation of principle of res judicata. The learned court below in the present suit filed by the appellant having found the issue raised by the appellant substantially same with the former suits, rightly dismissed the suit on preliminary objection summarily. This, in my considered view, cannot be faulted. Similarly, the appeal was also rejected, which suffers from no illegality or irregularity. That being the position, I come to a conclusion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed