JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff-respondents 1 to 3 had filed Title Suit No. 10 of 2013 in the Court of learned Munsif, Kaimur against the appellants herein and others. The suit was for declaration that judgment dated 22.08.2008 and decree dated 28.08.2008 passed in Title Appeal No. 39 of 1991 by the learned Fast Track Court-I, Kaimur at Bhabua and judgment dated 11.01.2012 passed in Second Appeal No. 455 of 2008 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court are null and void and non-est in the eyes of law. 3. The plaintiff asserted that Title Suit No. 90 of 1983 was filed by one Sheo Murat Dubey claiming a Rasta in between Plot No. 309 and 310. Plaintiff No. 1 was minor. Defendant No. 8 in Title Suit No. 90 of 1983 and other defendants no. 14, 15 and 17 were also minors. Mr. Pradhan Murali Manohar Prasad, Advocate was appointed guardian ad litem in the suit. The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff left Pairavi of the case. Thereafter plaintiff of that suit preferred appeal before the learned District Judge vide Title Appeal No. 39 of 1991 which was heard and decided by learned Fast Track Court-1, Bhabua. The guardian ad litem appointed during suit was not impleaded as guardian of the minor defendants nor he was ever removed from the guardianship by order of the Court nor any other person was appointed as guardian in the appeal. Though the plaintiffs were shown minors in title appeal aforesaid, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. Thereafter the matter went up to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 455 of 2008 and even the High Court did not consider as to whether the minors were duly represented in the appeal or not. Thus, the challenged judgments of the appellate courts were against the minors. 4. By order dated 25.02.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 2013, the trial court dismissed the suit as barred by res-judicata for the reason that the same dispute was already decided in Title Suit No. 90 of 1983 between the same parties. Thus, the challenged judgments of the appellate courts were against the minors. 4. By order dated 25.02.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 2013, the trial court dismissed the suit as barred by res-judicata for the reason that the same dispute was already decided in Title Suit No. 90 of 1983 between the same parties. Order dated 25.02.2013 aforesaid was challenged in Title Appeal No. 10 of 2013 and by the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bhabua set aside the order of the trial Judge and remitted back the matter to the court below to proceed according to law. 5. The challenge is on the ground that this was a fit case for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC and the trial court rightly rejected the plaint whereas the lower appellate court acted against the law by setting aside the said order. 6. Attention has been drawn to the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(d) which according to the appellant is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Order 7, Rule 11(d) says that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 7. The statement in the plaint does not show that the suit is barred under any law. The statement shows that in earlier proceedings, order were passed at different levels against the minors without proper representation of the minors, therefore, that was not binding on the minors and for declaring them null and void, the present suit was filed. Even if it is assumed for argument sake that there is an arguable case that the suit is barred by res-judicata, this is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into at the stage of consideration of admission or rejection of the plaint. The disputed question of fact or mixed question of fact and law can only be decided after considering the pleadings and evidences of the parties. Therefore, in my view, the impugned order requires no interference. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.