ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Facts as averred in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition are as under: 2.1 The Petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land ad measuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No. 435/1 Part, situated at Gundlapochampally village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal District (suit scheduled property) and had acquired the same under a registered gift deed dated 23.05.2002 from his father-in-law who was the Pattedar and possessor of the above described suit schedule property. The Mandal Revenue Officer has mutated the petitioners name in the revenue records after due enquiry. He has also taken permission from the Gram Panchayat to construct boundary wall. Respondents 2 to 4 have tried to illegally interfere in the suit schedule property on 01.11.2013 and on the said incident complained of committing crime under Section 427 of IPC was reported to the Petbasheerabad Police Station and the same is pending. It is further alleged that respondents 2 to 4 again on 18.01.2014 tried to obstruct the construction of the compound wall and keeping in mind the above two incidents suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the Petitioner against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Honourable court granted the ad interim Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner over the suit schedule property. CMA filed before XVI Additional District Judge, was rejected. 2.2 While so, respondents 3 and 4 (sons of Respondent No 2) filed O.S. No. 81 of 2018 praying to grant perpetual Injunction against the Petitioner claiming that Respondent No. 3 is the owner and possessor of land ad measuring 0.11gts in Survey No. 435/2 situated at Gundlapochampally village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal District (schedule A property) and Respondent 4 is the absolute owner and possessor of land ad measuring 0.11 in Survey No. 435/2 situated at Gundlapochampally village, Medchal mandal, Medchal District (schedule B property). Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claim to have acquired the same vide registered gift deed dated 17.05.2013 from their father. After obtaining possession, names of the Respondents were mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings dated 04.03.2013. Respondent 4 has also obtained trade license to run a bakery in the schedule B premises and is paying regular electricity charges. There also exists grass for feeding buffaloes in schedule B property. After obtaining possession, names of the Respondents were mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings dated 04.03.2013. Respondent 4 has also obtained trade license to run a bakery in the schedule B premises and is paying regular electricity charges. There also exists grass for feeding buffaloes in schedule B property. Suit schedule properties A and B are situated adjacent to each other. It is alleged that petitioner is interfering illegally with schedule A and B properties along with henchmen on several occasions and on 08.03.2018 has tried to dispossess Respondents No. 3 and 4. In lieu of the above incidents Respondent Nos. 3 to 4 filed the said suit. 3. This writ petition is filed praying to issue writ of mandamus and praying to declare that O.S. No. 81 of 2018 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge at Medchal, Ranga Reddy district is not maintainable as it attracts principle of res judicata under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in view of pendency of O.S. No. 11 of 2014 on the file of the same Court i.e. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Court at Medchal, concerning same property. 4. On scrutiny, office raised objection on maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner replied to the office stating that writ petition is maintainable to hold that subsequent suit is hit by the principle of res judicata and placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Daryao and Others vs. State of U.P. and requested Registry to list the writ petition before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the second suit instituted by the unofficial respondents herein concern the same property on which petitioner filed O.S. No. 11 of 2014 and unofficial respondents are defendants in the said suit, therefore, unofficial respondent could not have instituted another suit claiming to grant injunction against the plaintiff/petitioner herein and therefore O.S. No. 81 of 2018 is hit by principle of res judicata and the same should be set aside. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Daryao. 6. As per Section 9 of CPC, Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Daryao. 6. As per Section 9 of CPC, Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation I explains that a suit in which the right to property is contested, is a suit of a civil nature. A plain reading of the provision in Section 9 of CPC makes it clear that Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate all suits of civil nature except there is an express/ implied bar created. The two suits pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Court at Medchal, are of civil nature as in both suits the claim is of interference in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the rival parties. Thus, there is no element of doubt on nature of suits and the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District is competent to entertain the suits. 7. Section 11 of CPC reads as under: S.11. Res judicata. No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation I - The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation III - The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. Explanation VII - The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII - An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. 8. Three fundamental requirements to attract principle of res judicata are, firstly issue raised in subsequent suit has been heard and decided by Court of competent jurisdiction in former suit. As clarified in Explanation I, former suit does not mean the suit which was instituted earlier to the suit instituted subsequently but suit which was decided earlier to another suit; secondly, the issue raised in the subsequent suit was directly and substantially in issue in former suit; and thirdly, it must be between the same parties or parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title. Only, if these conditions are fulfilled, the principle of res judicata is applicable. The foremost condition required to invoke this principle is that the issue was heard and finally decided by the Court. In the case on hand, O.S. No. 11 of 2014 instituted by petitioner is pending consideration by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Court at Medchal and issue is not yet decided. The foremost condition required to invoke this principle is that the issue was heard and finally decided by the Court. In the case on hand, O.S. No. 11 of 2014 instituted by petitioner is pending consideration by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Court at Medchal and issue is not yet decided. Therefore, the primary claim of the petitioner that the principle laid down in Section 11 of CPC is attracted is not available at this stage, even assuming the issue in O.S. No. 81 of 2018 is substantially the same as in O.S. No. 11 of 2014. 9. The principle of res judicata as incorporated in Section 11 is based on sound principle of public policy. The Court has to go into the plea of res judicata as any other plea of law and then to decide whether the issue or claim is barred or not. The primary objective of principle of res judicata is, there must be finality to litigation and parties cannot go on agitating same issue again and again. Once a decision is made by a competent Court, that decision is binding inter-parties and on the same issue, parties to the earlier litigation cannot seek to agitate by instituting subsequent litigation. They can avail the remedy of appeal but cannot file independent suit. Thus, bar created by Section 11 of CPC is only to ensure finality to the decision made by competent Court. Thus, to attract this principle a decision has to be made by the competent Court on matter directly and substantially in issue between the same parties. In the case on hand, no issue is decided finally. The party against whom bar of res judicata is raised must be given opportunity before a decision can be made. It is to be noted that principle of res judicata can be waived by the parties. Therefore specific plea must be raised before the Court where suit is pending and must be contested. Plea must be raised at the proper stage of the proceedings. In a given case, it is permissible for the Court, while considering the issue, to reject the plea and proceed to adjudicate the subsequent suit. It is for that Court to assess the respective claims and to decide the issue. 10. As noted above, in the instant case, issue was not raised before the competent Court and no finding was invited. It is for that Court to assess the respective claims and to decide the issue. 10. As noted above, in the instant case, issue was not raised before the competent Court and no finding was invited. Further, earlier suit is also pending and no finality to the issue agitated by petitioner in his suit is already reached. 11. However, the substantive issue for consideration is whether Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and whether Writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review grant the declaration sought by the petitioner. 12. Writ remedy is an extraordinary remedy and equitable remedy. The Court extends its long arm of justice to reach out to persons, a citizen and even a non-citizen whose rights are affected by any illegality of State or its instrumentality and in a given case, by a private person. Though, jurisdiction of the writ Court has no bounds and can be extended far and wide but there are self imposed restraints in exercising such jurisdiction. Writ Court do not entertain writ petitions where parties to an issue have effective and efficacious remedies available. Whenever parties have effective and efficacious alternative remedies available, the Court relegates such parties to avail such remedies and decline to entertain writ petition and consider the issue. Even when a writ is filed against inferior Tribunal/quasi-judicial authority or an administrative authority when proceedings are pending before them, ordinarily writ Court do not entertain writ petition unless it is pleaded and established that such authority/tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue, biased and /or there is violation of principle of natural justice and/or lacks fair play in action. Even within this limited parameters, judicial review under Article 226 is not available against civil Court. 13. In the case on hand issue agitated is to declare the subsequent suit as not maintainable. It being a civil suit pending before a civil Court that Court alone is competent to deal with the issue like any other issue. Writ Court cannot usurp jurisdiction of civil Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and restrain the competent Civil Court from exercising power to adjudicate a suit instituted before that Court. 14. The principle of law is well settled. The issue was considered in recent decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam and Another vs. Chhabi Nath and Others. 14. The principle of law is well settled. The issue was considered in recent decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam and Another vs. Chhabi Nath and Others. On review of the entire precedent decisions, Supreme Court delineated the principles governing the maintainability of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14.1 Supreme Court held as under: 2.......assailing an interim order of civil court in a pending suit, the Defendant-Respondent filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court and the High Court having vacated the said interim order granted in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant, the Appellant moved this Court by way of a special leave petition, inter-alia, contending that the writ petition Under Article 226 was not maintainable against the order of the civil court and, thus, the impugned order could not be passed by the High Court. 13. In Mirajkar, a nine Judge Bench judgment, a judicial order of High Court was challenged as being violative of fundamental right. This Court by majority held that a judicial order of a competent court could not violate a fundamental right. Even if there was incidental violation, it could not be held to be violative of fundamental right. Gajendragaddkar, C.J. observed: 37........The argument that the impugned order affects the fundamental rights of the Petitioners Under Article 19(1), is based on a complete misconception about the true nature and character of judicial process and of judicial decisions. When a Judge deals with matters brought before him for his adjudication, he first decides questions of fact on which the parties are at issue and then applies the relevant law to the said facts. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Judge are right or wrong, and whether the conclusion of law drawn by him suffers from any infirmity, can be considered and decided if the party aggrieved by the decision of the Judge takes the matter up before the appellate court. But it is singularly inappropriate to assume that a judicial decision pronounced by a Judge of competent jurisdiction in or in relation to a matter brought before him for adjudication can affect the fundamental rights of the citizens Under Article 19(1). What the judicial decision purports to do is to decide the controversy between the parties brought before the court and nothing more. What the judicial decision purports to do is to decide the controversy between the parties brought before the court and nothing more. If this basic and essential aspect of the judicial process is borne in mind, it would be plain that the judicial verdict pronounced by court in or in relation to a matter brought before it for its decision cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of citizens Under Article 19(1). 38.......Just as an order passed by the court on the merits of the dispute before it can be challenged only in appeal and cannot be said to contravene the fundamental rights of the litigants before the Court, so could the impugned order be challenged in appeal Under Article 136 of the Constitution, but it cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of the Petitioners. The character of the judicial order remains the same whether it is passed in a matter directly in issue between the parties, or is passed incidentally to make the adjudication of the dispute between the parties fair and effective. On this view of the matter, it seems to us that the whole attack against the impugned order based on the assumption that it infringes the Petitioners' fundamental rights Under Article 19(1), must fail. 20. This Court in judgment dated 6 December, 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 815 of 1989 Qamruddin vs. Rasul Baksh and Another which has been quoted in Allahabad High Court judgment in Ganga Saran vs. Civil Judge, AIR 1991 All. 114 considered the issue of writ of certiorari and mandamus against interim order of civil court and held: If the order of injunction is passed by a competent court having jurisdiction in the matter, it is not permissible for the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. In the instant case the learned Single Judge of the High Court further failed to realise that a writ of mandamus could not be issued in this case. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless he is under a statutory duty to perform a public duty. The dispute involved in the instant case was entirely between two private parties, which could not be a subject matter of writ of mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless he is under a statutory duty to perform a public duty. The dispute involved in the instant case was entirely between two private parties, which could not be a subject matter of writ of mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge ignored this basic principle of writ jurisdiction conferred on the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. There was no occasion or justification for issue of a writ of certiorari or mandamus. The High Court committed serious error of jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the District Judge. 25. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system of King's Court in India and of all other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to supervision of King's Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision Under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence Under Article 227. Orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by statutes, power of superintendence Under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression "inferior court" is not referable to judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order in paras 26 and 27 quoted above. 27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari Under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. 27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari Under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226. (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Daryao, Supreme Court held that a change in the form of attack against the impugned statute would make no difference to the true legal position that the writ petition in the High Court and the writ petition under Article 32 are directed against the same statute and the grounds raised by the petitioner in that behalf are substantially the same. Therefore, the decision of the High Court pronounced by it on the merits of the petitioner's writ petition under Art. 226 is a bar to the making of petition under Art. 32. Petitioners therein claimed that their ancestors were tenants of the scheduled property for the last 50 years. Due to communal disturbances they had to leave the scheduled premised and returned a few months later. Respondents 3 to 5 who are the owners took illegal possession of the said scheduled premises. The trial court and the additional commissioner granted possession to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the above orders, Respondents 3 to 5 filed a writ under Article 226 in the Allahabad High Court to quash the orders of the trial court and additional commissioner. Due to changes in the U.P Tenancy Act, which provisions were against the petitioner the writ was not pressed. Under the said circumstances a writ was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. Grounds raised to quash the order of the additional commissioner before the Allahabd High Court were similar to the grounds raised in the writ filed under Article 32. 15.1 In Daryao, a decision was already made by High Court and on same issue writ petition was filed under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. Thus, said decision does not come to the aid of petitioner. 16. Litigant must prosecute his legal remedies with due diligence, fair and honest. One cannot take undue advantage and try to score over his opponent. A person has right to seek legal remedies to redress his grievance but has no right to scuttle other persons right to seek legal remedies. 16. Litigant must prosecute his legal remedies with due diligence, fair and honest. One cannot take undue advantage and try to score over his opponent. A person has right to seek legal remedies to redress his grievance but has no right to scuttle other persons right to seek legal remedies. By invoking this Courts extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, petitioner is only intending to some who scuttle his opponents right to prosecute his legal remedies. 17. If petitioner has objection on maintainability of the subsequent suit, petitioner ought to have raised specific objection before the competent Court where the suit is pending and it is for that Court to consider the petition and take a decision. If petitioner is aggrieved by the decision made therein, he has remedies provided under CPC. It is appropriate to note that petitioner has not even raised objection on maintainability of the subsequent suit instituted by unofficial respondents and straight-away filed this writ petition. Thus, petitioner could not have resorted to filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising the plea of res-judicta. 18. It is also appropriate to note that petitioner seeks mandamus to hold that the subsequent suit instituted by unofficial respondent is hit by principle of res-judicata. No mandamus would lie to hold that the principle of res-judicata is attracted to a suit filed subsequent to the suit filed by the petitioner even if it concerns the same suit schedule property. 19. Objection raised by the Registry is sustained and writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks. Pending Miscellaneous applications stand closed.