ORDER : 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu (hereinafter “the trial Court for short”) whereby the trial Court has decided the preliminary issues framed in the suit. The preliminary issues being issue Nos. 3, 4 & 5 which have been decided by the trial Court vide order impugned read as under:- (3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. (4) Whether the suit is hit by principle of constructive res-judicata as well as estoppels and requires to be dismissed out rightly? OPD. (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed? OPD. 2. The first preliminary issue has been decided against the petitioners (defendants in the suit) on the ground that the issue of limitation, in the given facts, is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, cannot be determined as a preliminary issue. The decision on this issue has, thus, been deferred to be decided after conclusion of the trial in the suit. 3. The second preliminary issue too has been decided against the defendants and the suit has been held to be maintainable. Likewise, the third preliminary issue has been decided against the defendants and the trial Court has held the suit not hit by the principle of constructive res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The petitioner before me does not seriously dispute the decision of the trial Court on the other two issues, but insists that the trial Court has gone wrong while deciding the issue of “constructive res judicata”. 5. Mr. Magotra learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thus, throws challenge to the impugned order only with regard to the decision of the trial Court on the issue of applicability of principle of “constructive res judicata” and “estopple”. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. I am of the view that the decision of the trial Court on issue No. 4 framed in the suit is perfectly legal. Neither the principle of “res judicata” nor “constructive res judicata” as envisaged under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted in the case in hand. 7. I am of the view that the decision of the trial Court on issue No. 4 framed in the suit is perfectly legal. Neither the principle of “res judicata” nor “constructive res judicata” as envisaged under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted in the case in hand. 7. With a view to better appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be necessary to first set out the provisions of Section11 which read thus:- “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.” 8. From a plain reading of Section 11, it is abundantly clear that second/subsequent suit will be hit by the principle of res judicata only, if the issue raised in the subsequent suit has been directly and substantially an issue in the former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title. Explanation (7) of Section 11, which is strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to make his point, only provides that where a party to a civil suit sets up or relies upon a pedigree, and the question of such pedigree is put directly and substantially in issue, and is, after a full and regular trial, decided against such party, then as regards such question or issue, the party’s descendents, heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, shall in any future litigation be deemed to claim under him. 9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the brother of the party is not descendent, heir, executor, administrator or assign. The plea of the petitioner is that the brother of respondent No.1 namely Budhi Singh had earlier filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was legitimately born son of one Gandharab Singh, which suit was dismissed by the civil Court. The plea of the petitioner is that the brother of respondent No.1 namely Budhi Singh had earlier filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was legitimately born son of one Gandharab Singh, which suit was dismissed by the civil Court. The argument that the respondent No. 1 who is none other than brother of Budhi Singh, is estopped from filing the suit claiming similar declaration is devoid of any merit and, therefore, cannot be accepted. It is true, that prior to the filing of instant suit by Shukar Singh, his brother Budhi Singh had also filed a suit for declaration that he was the son of late. Sh. Gandharab Singh and, therefore, entitled to inherit his properties. He failed to prove the suit and same was accordingly, dismissed. After the dismissal of the suit, as is claimed by the petitioner, Shukar Singh i.e. Brother of Budhi Singh filed a fresh suit seeking a declaration that he is legitimately born son of Late Gandharab Singh and thus, entitled to inherit his properties. 10. The petitioners while defending the suit have taken a categorical stand that the suit filed by Sukar Singh against the petitioners is barred by the principle of res judicata/ constructive res judicata. 11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court stuck a specific issue in this regard as issue No. 3. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions decided the issue against the petitioners (defendants in the suit) holding that the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata as is envisaged under Section 11 of the CPC is not attracted. It is held that the plaintiff Shukar Singh was not a party in the earlier suit nor is he claiming any title through his Brother Budhi Singh who had remained unsuccessful in his suit filed for seeking declaration of his status as a son of Sh. Gandharab Singh. 12. The plea of the petitioners could have been accepted had it been the case of the petitioners that Sukhar Singh has filed the suit on the basis of right, title or interest derived from Sh. Budhi Singh. 13. The decree passed against Budhi Singh cannot by any stretch of reasoning, bind the plaintiff Shukar Singh. Viewed from any angle, one does not find any fault with the decision of the trial court on the issue in question. Budhi Singh. 13. The decree passed against Budhi Singh cannot by any stretch of reasoning, bind the plaintiff Shukar Singh. Viewed from any angle, one does not find any fault with the decision of the trial court on the issue in question. The trial Court has properly appreciated the import of Section 11 and come to the right conclusion that the decree passed by the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction between Budhi Singh and the petitioners would only bind the petitioners and Budhi Singh or his heirs, administrators, assigns etc. The Brother of Budhi Singh, i.e. plaintiff Sukar Singh cannot be held bound by the decree which has admittedly been passed only against his brother. At the cost of this repetition, it may be pointed out that the plaintiff Sukar Singh is only a brother of Budhi Singh and does not derive any title from him. Budhi Singh may have failed in his suit for his own reasons but that does not necessarily mean that the suit of Sukar Singh also would necessarily meet the same fate. 14. The interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner if accepted would have very serious consequences on the rights of those who may not be party to the lis. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I see no justification to take a view different from the one taken by the trial Court. The issue of estoppel and constructive res judicata, raised by the petitioners, has been correctly decided by the trial Court and no interference therewith is called for. 16. This revision petition is, thus, found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.