Judgment Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.744 of 2008 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction. Thereafter, the prayer in the suit was amended to be the one for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner, who happens to be defendant No.1, filed I.A.No.310 of 2009 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint. Through its order, dated 10.11.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri L.J.Veera Reedy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client secured possession of the suit schedule property through execution of the decree in O.S.No.1108 of 2007 on the file of the very trial Court and in that view of the matter, the suit filed by respondent No.1 is barred by res judicata. The only basis on which the petitioner seeks rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.744 of 2008 is that respondent No.1 is precluded from pleading contrary to the decree in O.S.No.1108 of 2007. In a way, he invokes the principle/doctrine of res judicata. Even where a plea of res judicata is available to a defendant in a suit, he cannot seek rejection of the plaint. The reason is that the said ground does not fit into any of the clauses contained in Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. Rejection of plaint is a very drastic step resulting in the very closure of doors of a Court to the plaintiff in the suit concerned. Refusal of adjudication on merits by a Court warrants a very strong circumstance covered by Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. The Parliament was very cautious in stipulating the grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. Even where a plea of res judicata is otherwise available, at the most, it constitutes a ground to be pleaded in the written statement. It is only after an issue is framed on it, that various ingredients of the doctrine of res judicata namely (a) whether the Court which rendered the judgment in earlier proceedings was competent; (b) whether the subject matter of both the suits is one and the same and (c) whether the parties were common, can be verified on the basis of evidence. In the instant case, there is no dispute that respondent No.1 herein i.e. the plaintiff in O.S.No.744 of 2008 was not a party to O.S.No.1108 of 2007. Viewed from any angle, the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The trial Court has taken a correct view of the matter in dismissing I.A.No.310 of 2009. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.