JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are the defendants in Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014, are aggrieved of order dated 11.08.2017 by which their petition filed under Section 11 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that an issue which has been conclusively decided in Title (P) Suit No.30 of 1991 between the same parties cannot be reopened in subsequent suit, that is, Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014 and the subsequent suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014 has been instituted by Dhirendra Kumar Rawani for a decree for partition of schedule ‘B’ lands by meats and bounds; this property was share of the defendant nos. 1 in Title (P) Suit No.30 of 1991, and for appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner for preparing a separate Takta for the plaintiff in respect of schedule ‘B’ land. The plaintiff in Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014 has laid a claim by virtue of sale-deed dated 04.02.1989 over the share of Ashutosh Rawani who was defendant no.1 in the previous partition suit and after his death his legal heirs and successors who are defendant nos.1(a) and 1(d) were substituted in his place. In Title (P) Suit No.30 of 1991 there were several plaintiffs who are not parties to Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014, however, present plaintiff was made Defendant no.11 in the said partition suit. The defendants in Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014 were also parties to the previous suit. Title (P) Suit No.30 of 1991 was decreed vide judgment dated 22.01.2004, however, the present plaintiff has pleaded that in the partition suit by playing fraud the defendant nos. 1(a) and 1(d) have got the entire share of Ashutosh Rawani which was sold to him allotted in their favour [para-11]. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale-deed dated 04.02.1989 was a forged and fabricated document and on the basis of the sale-deed the plaintiff-Dhirendra Kumar Rawani had obtained employment under M/s BCCL, however, on the representation of the petitioners his employment was cancelled and the matter has travelled up to this Court. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale-deed dated 04.02.1989 was a forged and fabricated document and on the basis of the sale-deed the plaintiff-Dhirendra Kumar Rawani had obtained employment under M/s BCCL, however, on the representation of the petitioners his employment was cancelled and the matter has travelled up to this Court. 5. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC provides that if on a plain reading of the plaint averments the suit appears to be barred by any law the plaint shall be rejected. By now it is well-settled that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, defence taken by the defendant either in the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC or in the written-statement shall not be looked into. The plea of res-judicata taken by the defendants is their defence objecting to the relief claimed by the plaintiff in Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014. Whether Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014 is barred under Section 11 CPC is a question of fact for which the parties are required to lead evidence. Equally true would be the position in respect of the plea taken by the petitioners that the sale-deed dated 04.02.1989 is a forged and fabricated document. The trial Judge has rightly observed that prima facie when it is found that parties in both the suits are not common and the issue in Title (P) Suit No.06 of 2014 was not directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is liable to be rejected. 6. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.08.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.