JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-plaintiff, Latoor, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Taleda, Bundi whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected his plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. He is further aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2014 passed by the District Judge, Bundi whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2013, and dismissed the appeal filed by him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the land falling within Khasra No.220, Rakba 09 Biswa, and Khasra No.221, Rakba 07 Biswa located in Village Chandanheli, District Bundi initially belonged to the appellant's father, Gopalji. Subsequently, the Government acquired the said land under the Ceiling laws. Part of this land was supposedly transferred to Bhanwarlal. Bhanwarlal had filed a civil suit against the appellant's brother, Radheyshyam, before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Taleda for permanent injunction. In the said suit, Bhanwarlal neither impleaded the present appellant, nor his other three brothers, Mahaveer, Jagdish and Kanhaiyalal, as a party defendants. The said suit was decreed in favour of Bhanwarlal. Subsequently, the appellant had filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC raising his objection against implementation of the decree passed in favour of Bhanwarlal. However, the said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the appellant filed a civil suit against Bhanwarlal for declaration and permanent injunction. However, by judgment and decree dated 7.2.2013, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the suit. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, by judgment and decree dated 18.1.2014, the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2013. Hence, this appeal before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the learned Magistrate has rejected the plaint without issuing any notice to the defendant-respondent. 4. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that an application filed by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC was rejected earlier by the Executing Court. 5. Thirdly, the learned Magistrate has erred in concluding that the plaint is hit by a bar contained in the law. 6. Lastly, the learned first appellate court has ignored the errors committed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Thirdly, the learned Magistrate has erred in concluding that the plaint is hit by a bar contained in the law. 6. Lastly, the learned first appellate court has ignored the errors committed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, both the impugned judgments and decrees need to be interfered with. 7. Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is as under:- R.11. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9; [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. 8. A bare perusal of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC clearly reveals that there is no requirement of law that the court cannot exercise its power under the said provision without first issuing a notice to the defendant. Once a plaint is submitted before the learned trial court, the learned trial court can suo motu exercise its power to see whether the plaint is maintainable or not. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel, that the learned Magistrate could not reject the plaint without first issuing notice to the defendant, is highly misplaced. 9. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 18.1.2014 passed by the learned Judge reveals the factual foundation of the present case. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel, that the learned Magistrate could not reject the plaint without first issuing notice to the defendant, is highly misplaced. 9. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 18.1.2014 passed by the learned Judge reveals the factual foundation of the present case. Khasra No.220 and 221 belonged to the appellant's father which were acquired by the Government under the Ceiling Act; the land in dispute was subsequently declared to be Siwai Chak. Radheyshyam (the defendant-respondent No.5 before this court) had filed a civil suit against Bhanwarlal (the defendant-respondent No.4 before this court) for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of Radheyshyam vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.1998. The appellant, in fact, had filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC. However, the said application was dismissed by the court. Therefore, obviously the appellant could not file the suit with regard to the same subject matter in which his application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC had been dismissed. In the case of Prasantha Banerji v. Pushpa Ashoke Chandani & Ors. [ (2002) 9 SCC 554 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also opined that a suit with regard to the same property could not be filed, after the execution proceedings have commenced. Therefore, the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court were justified in concluding that the suit could not be filed after the execution proceedings had started. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the learned courts below cannot be faulted.Therefore, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees. This appeal being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******