JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.:- Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by court below whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by defendant-petitioners has been rejected. 2. Petitioner no. 1 who appears in person has assailed the order. She submits that issues now raised in the suit have earlier been decided finally by the court of competent jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have failed to disclose this fact in the plaint. As entire litigation has come to an end in earlier suits, present suit is not maintainable and plaint deserves to be rejected. She has relied upon judgment of the apex court reported as T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. AIR 1977 Supreme Court, 2421. 3. Plea has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to him, plaintiffs or their predecessors were never party to earlier litigation. They were merely suits for injunction. In the instant suit, plaintiffs have sought a declaration that site in question be declared as passage for plaintiffs and other inhabitants of Aggarwal Mandi. Nature of cause of action being different, suit cannot be rejected at the outset. 4. I have heard petitioner in person and counsel for the respondents and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 5. According to stand of petitioners there was earlier litigation regarding the site in question. Same was decided in the years 1959 & 1964 wherein disputed road was left in ownership of defendant-petitioners alone. Another suit was filed in the year 1982 and proceedings in same concluded in the year 1983. Thus, there is no ground for the trial court to entertain fresh suit in this regard. Trial court has rejected the prayer observing that for deciding the issue raised by petitioners, some evidence would be required, essentially question of res-judicata would also have to be adjudicated upon. I find no infirmity with the order passed by the court below. There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down in T. Arivandandam case (supra) that trial court would initially examine the case and ensure that bogus litigation is not allowed to continue. In the instant case, stand of the plaintiffs is that they were not parties to earlier litigation nor prayer for declaration was made at that stage. There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down in T. Arivandandam case (supra) that trial court would initially examine the case and ensure that bogus litigation is not allowed to continue. In the instant case, stand of the plaintiffs is that they were not parties to earlier litigation nor prayer for declaration was made at that stage. Thus this court finds it difficult to hold that plaint filed by the plaintiffs can be rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, needless to observe that in case some issues are involved which are required to be treated as preliminary issues, parties can make a prayer in that regard. The court would be within its discretion to decide such issues at the earliest. Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------