JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. 1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner/defendant (for brevity “the defendant”) assails the legality and validity of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) dismissing an application filed by her under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed a suit seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized in between the parties on the ground of cruelty wherein, the defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2021, impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the present suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable inasmuch as his earlier two suits seeking decree of dissolution of marriage were dismissed by the learned Family Court at New Delhi. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 04.03.2021 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by her under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the application filed by the defendant was not maintainable inasmuch as her earlier application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2019. He submits that one of divorce petitions filed by him at New Delhi was withdrawn by him and after dismissal of his second petition seeking dissolution of marriage by the learned Family, New Delhi vide judgment dated 29.05.2015, he has filed the present suit based on subsequent events and hence, principle of res-judicata is not attracted. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of this Court in case of Munni Devi and Others vs. Ramsahai (Since Deceased) through LRs. 2023 (2) DNJ (Raj) 730. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the learned Family Court on the premise that her earlier similar application came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2019. It is trite law that the principle of res-judicata/constructive res-judicata is applicable in the same proceeding during pendency of the suit at successive stages. The application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the learned Family Court on the premise that her earlier similar application came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2019. It is trite law that the principle of res-judicata/constructive res-judicata is applicable in the same proceeding during pendency of the suit at successive stages. In case of Munni Devi and Others (supra), it was held as under: “5. Indisputably, the petitioners have filed an earlier application dated 16.04.2021 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint alleging that without seeking declaration as to his khatedari rights, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. The application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 19.08.2021 which has attained finality. Thereafter, the instant application filed by the petitioners raising similar objection has been dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2022, impugned herein. It is trite law that the principles of res judicata/constructive judicata are applicable in the subsequent stages of same proceedings during pendency of the suit. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Sahina vs. Returning Officer (Panchayat) Gram Panchayat Jhiwana and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6916/2017, vide order dated 10.05.2017 held as under: “(6) Of importance in the case is the fact of an earlier application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the trial, court on 12-2-2016. The RC did not in the said application set up a ground under Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994 with regard to the election petition not being presented by the election petitioner or by one duly authorised by her in writing. The RC at the stage of final arguments then filed the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been dismissed by the impugned order by the trial court. Section 141 CPC provides that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. That would apply to applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Section 141 CPC provides that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. That would apply to applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. I am of the considered view that thus an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a suit/election petition can be laid only on one occasion and repeated applications under the aforesaid provision cannot be filed nor could have been conceivably contemplated in law. Were it to be so, there would be multiple applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC leading to enormous delays in the disposal of the suits/election petitions. Issues of res-judicata would also arise on such multiple applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (7) The Apex Court in the case of Y.B. Patil vs. Y.L. Patil, AIR 1977 SC 392 reiterated the well settled legal position that the principles of res-judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, but also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. The RC not having invoked Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994 in her first application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed on 12-2-2016, (and which order has attained finality), she could not have filed the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC purporting to invoke Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994. Such an application was barred by constructive res-judicata.” 6. In the present case, a perusal of the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reveals that the same plea has been raised which was raised in the earlier application. Therefore, the learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the application inter-alia on the ground of res-judicata. Submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that on earlier occasion, plea raised by them was not considered by the learned trial Court while considering the application is of no help to her. Even assuming the contention to be true, it could not have furnished a ground to the petitioners to renew the prayer by way of fresh application and sought review of the order dated 19.08.2021 which had attained finality.” 7. Even assuming the contention to be true, it could not have furnished a ground to the petitioners to renew the prayer by way of fresh application and sought review of the order dated 19.08.2021 which had attained finality.” 7. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by the defendant on the principle of res-judicata. Even otherwise also, contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the instant suit was barred by principle of res-judicata does not merit acceptance. The first divorce petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn and was not decided on merit. Although, the second divorce petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Family Court, New Delhi vide judgment dated 29.05.2015 on merit; but, a perusal of the instant suit reveals that it is based on events subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier divorce petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the civil revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. The stay application also stands disposed of.