Judgment: N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present first appeal against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal in civil suit No. 10-A/2012, whereby the suit was dismissed with the direction that it was not maintainable. The facts of the case, in short, is that, one Ratanlal Kothari had prosecuted a civil suit for recovery of some amount against Matin Mohd. A money decree of Rs. 99,994/- was passed. In the meantime, Ratanlal Kothari as well as Matin Mohd. had expired and therefore, an execution proceeding was initiated by L.Rs. of Ratanlal Kothari. During the execution proceeding, the suit property was auctioned and it was purchased by the respondent No. 3 Omprakash Lakhera. In execution proceeding, it was mentioned that possession was given to the respondent No. 3 and decree holder had received the entire decree amount and therefore, decree was satisfied. The appellants are legal representatives of late Mr. Khalil Ahmad. Actually, the house which was auctioned was not of Matin Mohd. but, it was purchased by Khalil Ahmad and Shri Khalil Ahmad raised various objections in the execution proceeding but, those were dismissed. Ultimately, the applicants have submitted a civil suit by claiming declaration of their title and to declare the various orders passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Bhopal and 10th Additional District Judge, Bhopal to be illegal. The respondent No. 3 has moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. that the legal pronouncement done by the learned Additional District Judges could not be directed to be illegal in subsequent suit and therefore the suit was not maintainable. Consequently, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhopal dismissed the suit being not maintainable. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted the various orders passed by the single Benches of this Court in cases of "Shiv Kumar Vs. Mangilal ((1997), (1) MPJRSN 17), "Ramchandra Vs. Bhagirath", ((2003) (1) M.P.A.C.J. 55) and the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh & Ors.", ( AIR 2012 SC 3023 ) to show that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11in such a manner at preliminary stage. Mangilal ((1997), (1) MPJRSN 17), "Ramchandra Vs. Bhagirath", ((2003) (1) M.P.A.C.J. 55) and the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh & Ors.", ( AIR 2012 SC 3023 ) to show that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11in such a manner at preliminary stage. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that suit was dismissed without any cognate reason as shown in Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the title of the deceased Khalil Ahmad was considered by the executing Court and objections raised by Khalil Ahmad was dismissed by various orders passed by the executing Courts and therefore, no suit is maintainable to challenge the orders passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. If the appellants were aggrieved with those orders then, appropriate appeal or revision should have been filed at that time. No such civil suit is maintainable to declare the orders of various Courts to be illegal. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the impugned order was not an order passed under Order VII rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. On the other hand, the trial Court has dismissed the suit being not maintainable and therefore, an appeal was filed against the order. If the title of the deceased Khalil Ahmad was examined by the executing Court due to objection raised by the deceased Khalil Ahmad and his legal representatives then, filing of a fresh suit has an effect of res judicata under section 11 of the C.P.C. and therefore, it was not maintainable. It was for the applicants to move the superior Courts against the various orders passed by the executing Courts. No such suit can be filed to nullify the legal order passed by the civil Court, otherwise, the process will not end. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the civil Court dissatisfied parties may move a fresh suit and such procedure shall never end, consequently, such procedure cannot be accepted because it is contrary to the provisions of C.P.C. By perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, it is apparent that the suit filed by the applicants was not maintainable. 6. 6. In the present appeal, there is no basis by which the appeal can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed with cost. The appellants shall bear their own cost as well as the cost of the respondents. Advocate fee be added @ Rs. 5,000/-, if certified. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.