JUDGMENT A.K. Rath, J. - By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jharsuguda in C.S.No.80 of 2014. By the said order, the learned trial court has rejected the application of the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 instituted the suit for declaration of title, the Will dated 10.9.1997 is void, the order passed by the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda in Mutation Case No.2366 of 2006 is void, permanent injunction and certain other ancillary reliefs impleading the petitioner as well as opposite parties 3 to 15 as defendants. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant No. 1- petitioner entered contest and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. While the matter stood thus, defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had filed T.S.No.68 of 1993 in the court of the learned Sub-Judge, Sambalpur seeking identical reliefs. The suit schedule property in both the suits is same. Parties in both the cases are identical. In both the suits the main issue is with regard to sale deed No. 336 dated 24.12.1990 which was registered in favour of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit. On 2.11.1999 the earlier suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The suit is hit by principle of res judicata. The learned trial court came to hold that the defendant has not produced any document with regard to disposal of the earlier suit. The earlier suit was dismissed for nonprosecution. The defendant failed to prove that the suit was finally decided by the learned Judge, Sambalpur. Held so, it rejected the petition. 4. Heard Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, learned Advocate for the petitioner. 5. Mr. Parija, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff had earlier instituted T.S.No.68 of 1993 in the court of the learned Sub-Judge, Sambalpur seeking the identical reliefs. The suit schedule property in both the suits is same. The parties are almost identical. The earlier suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8 CPC. Thus, the present suit is hit by under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC. The suit schedule property in both the suits is same. The parties are almost identical. The earlier suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8 CPC. Thus, the present suit is hit by under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC. In view of the same, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 6. In Kamala and others v. K.T. Eshwara SA and others, AIR 2008 SC 3174 , while dealing with the principle engrafted under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC, the apex Court held : "21. Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7, Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various subclauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14, Rule 2 is another. 22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision." 23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code. The question involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that stage. 24. The question involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that stage. 24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say that although the same discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a law. 25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad principle which can be culled out therefrom is that the court at that stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for rejection of plaint should be entertained." 7. Taking a cue from Kamala (supra), the apex Court in the case of Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar and others, AIR 2015 SC 3357 held : 14."In this regard a reference to a three-Judge Bench decision in Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust and others would be frutiful. Be it noted the said case was referred to a larger Bench vide Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust. The order of reference reads as follows:- "4. This case was argued at length on 30-8-2005. Counsel appearing for the appellant had relied upon a judgment of this Court in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma for the proposition that a plaint could be rejected if the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. As against this, counsel for the respondents relied upon a later judgment of this Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. in respect of the proposition that Order 7, Rule 11(d) was not applicable in a case where a question has to be decided on the basis of fact that the suit was barred by limitation. in respect of the proposition that Order 7, Rule 11(d) was not applicable in a case where a question has to be decided on the basis of fact that the suit was barred by limitation. The point as to whether the words "barred by law" occurring in Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC would include the suit being "barred by limitation" was not specifically dealt with in either of these two judgments, cited above. But this point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman, Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P., Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana, Arjan Singh v. Union of India wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. A contrary view has been taken in Jugolinija Rajia Jugoslavija v. Fab Leathers Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Navrom Constantza, J. Patel & Co. v. National Federation of Industrial Coop. Ltd. and State Bank of India Staff Assn. v. Popat & Kotecha Property. The last judgment was the subject-matter of challenge in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. This Court set aside the judgment and held in para 25 as under: "25. When the averments in the plaint are considered in the background of the principles set out in Sopan Sukhdeo case the inevitable conclusion is that the Division Bench was not right in holding that Order 7, Rule 11, CPC was applicable to the facts of the case. Diverse claims were made and the Division Bench was wrong in proceeding with the assumption that only the non-execution of lease deed was the basic issue. Even if it is accepted that the other claims were relatable to it they have independent existence. Whether the collection of amounts by the respondent was for a period beyond 51 years needs evidence to be adduced. It is not a case where the suit from statement in the plaint can be said to be barred by law. The statement in the plaint without addition or subtraction must show that it is barred by any law to attract application of Order 7, Rule 11. It is not a case where the suit from statement in the plaint can be said to be barred by law. The statement in the plaint without addition or subtraction must show that it is barred by any law to attract application of Order 7, Rule 11. This is not so in the present case." 5. Noticing the conflict between the various High Courts and the apparent conflict of opinion expressed by this Court in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma and Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. the Bench referred the following question of law for consideration to a larger Bench: "Whether the words 'barred by law' under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) would also include the ground that it is barred by the law of limitation."" 15. The three-Judge Bench opined that there was no conflict of opinion and thereafter the matter came back to the Division Bench for adjudication. The Division Bench reproduced what has been stated by the three-Judge Bench. It is as under:- "Before the three-Judge Bench, counsel for both the parties stated as follows: "...It is not the case of either side that as an absolute proposition an application under Order 7 and Rule 11(d) can never be based on the law of limitation. Both sides state that the impugned judgment is based on the facts of this particular case and the question whether or not an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) could be based on law of limitation was not raised and has not been dealt with. Both sides further state that the decision in this case will depend upon the facts of this case." 8. Reverting to the facts of this case and keeping in view the enunciation of law laid down by the apex Court in the decisions cited supra, this Court finds that parties are not same in both the suits. The prayer in both the suits are not same. Issues are not identical. In view of the same, there should have been a trial with regard to all the issues framed. 9. In the wake of aforesaid, the petition, sans merit, is dismissed. No costs.