JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The present Revision Application is filed by original defendant being aggrieved by the order dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.1280 of 2019 below Exh.13, i.e. application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Factual matrix are as under : That Mr. Milind Dinkarrao Kathale and Ravindra Ramaji Bhade filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 for declaration and injunction against Mr. Premchand Brijlal Jain and Utkarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of plot bearing Nos.167 and 168 respectively, situated in the layout of non-applicant Society. They also claimed permanent mandatory injunction against defendant No.1 (Premchand Brijlal Jain) from disturbing the peaceful possession over the suit property. The said Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 came to be decreed on 10/1/2008 and plaintiffs were declared owners of plot Nos. 167 and 168 respectively. The learned Trial Court also granted permanent mandatory injunction against defendant No.1 - Premchand Brijlal jain. The said judgment and decree attained finality. In September - 2019, one Shyam Revachand Suwarani filed a Regular Civil Suit No.1280 of 2019 against the Utkarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur and Abhijit Realtors and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. In the said suit filed by Shyam Revachand Suwarani, claiming ownership of the property without any document of title and also claiming that he was in possession on the basis of 'Kabjapatra' executed by Premchand Brijlal Jain dtd. 19/6/2004. It is also his contention that Premchand Brijlal Jain had also executed a registered 'Power of Attorney' in favour of him on 22/6/2004. Thus, he was empowered with the 'Power of Attorney' and was put in possession of plot No.167. In view of these submission in the plaint, the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by defendant No.2- Abhijit Realtors & Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. 4. In Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 Premchand Brijlal Jain was defendant No.1 and Utkarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur was defendant No.2. The 23rd Jt. In Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 Premchand Brijlal Jain was defendant No.1 and Utkarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur was defendant No.2. The 23rd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 on 10/1/2008 with costs and plaintiff were declared as owners of plot Nos.167 and 168 respectively. In the said suit, the said Premchand Brijlal Jain and any other person claiming though him were restrained from disturbing peaceful possession of plaintiffs over the plot Nos.167 and 168. As such, it is claimed that the earlier suit will operates as constructive res judicata. The judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 attained finality. It is contended by the Society that the defendant Society sold the plot bearing No. 167 to Shri Ravindra Ramaji Bhade one of the plaintiff in the earlier suit by registered saledeed and subsequently said Ravindra Ramaji Bhade transferred the said plot to one Shri Arun Namdeorao Kaware by registered sale-deed on 2/12/2016 and since then the said Arun Namdeorao Kaware is in possession of the said plot. On the backdrop of this factual matrix, it is clear that the earlier judgment passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 has attained finality wherein ownership of the plots is decided. 5. Secondly, the plaintiff is not having any document of his title over the suit property. The plaintiff Shyam Revachand Surwarni claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of 'Power of Attorney' and 'Kabjapatra' issued by one Premchand Brijlal Jain, who was defendant in the earlier suit, his rights are already determined and there is no challenge by the said Premchand Brijlal Jain to this judgment in any other higher Court. 6. In spite of service to the respondent No.1, he chooses to remain absent. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant relied in the case of Shiocharan S/o Ramcharan Gade (Dead) through Legal Representatives Shankar S/o Shiocharan Gadhe and others Vs. Pandurang S/o Bisan Kumbhar through Lrs. Kashibai wd/o Pandurang Borsare and others, reported in 2009(5) Mh.L.J., 923, wherein it is held that the issue of ownership having been finally and conclusively decided by competent Court in the former suit operates as res judicata, specifically, when there is no dispute that it is the same suit property which was involved in former litigation. 8. Kashibai wd/o Pandurang Borsare and others, reported in 2009(5) Mh.L.J., 923, wherein it is held that the issue of ownership having been finally and conclusively decided by competent Court in the former suit operates as res judicata, specifically, when there is no dispute that it is the same suit property which was involved in former litigation. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied in the case of Ishwar Dutt V/s. Land Acquisition Collector and another reported in (2005) 7 SCC 190 and wherein it is held that, "the principle of res judicata is a species of the principle of estoppel. When a proceeding based on a particular cause of action has attained finality, the principle of res judicata shall fully apply. Cause of action estoppel arises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in the earlier proceedings, the latter having been litigated between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject-matter. In such a case, the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided unless fraud or collusion is alleged, such as to justify setting aside the earlier judgment. Issue estoppel may arise where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in a cause of action has been litigated and decided and in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant, one of the parties seeks to reopen that issue. Here also the bar is complete to relitigation but its operation can be thwarted under certain circumstances. The underlying principles upon which estoppel is based, public policy and justice have greater force in cause of action estoppel, the subject-matter of the two proceedings being identical, than they do in issue estoppel, where the subject-matter is different. Once it is accepted that different considerations apply to issue estoppel, it is hard to perceive any logical distinction between a point which was previously raised and decided and one which might have been but was not". The learned counsel further relied in the case of Rajendra Bajoria and others V/s. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 764. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 20 which reads as under : < WXY>"20. The learned counsel further relied in the case of Rajendra Bajoria and others V/s. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 764. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 20 which reads as under : < WXY>"20. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. However, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. This Court has held that the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted."</ WXY> 9. Admittedly, Shyam Revachand Suwarani is litigating on the basis of 'Power of Attorney', executed by Premchand Brijlal Jain. As such, to attract the provision of Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the previous suit is required to be already decided and the issue in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially involved in the former suit was between the same parties or we can say parties through whom they claim, litigating in the same title. Mr. Shyam Revachand Suwarani is having no independent right, interest or title over the suit property and he is claiming his rights on the basis of 'Power of Attorney', executed by Premchand Brijlal Jain, whose rights are already determined in the Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005. 10. Since, the issues were adjudicated and finally decided by the competent Court in the Regular Civil Suit No.381 of 2005, the findings of learned Trial Court that the plaintiff was not party to the earlier suit, is having no substance. 11. 10. Since, the issues were adjudicated and finally decided by the competent Court in the Regular Civil Suit No.381 of 2005, the findings of learned Trial Court that the plaintiff was not party to the earlier suit, is having no substance. 11. The learned Trial Court patently erred in holding that the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that if the suit is alleged to be hit by principle of res judicata. Needless to mention here that the application is filed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) & (d) of Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the facts, mentioned in the foregoing paras, there is no cause of action to file the suit as held in Ishwar Dutt principle of cause of action estoppel would apply. No rights are affected of the plaintiff. The order passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur dtd. 29/9/2021, below Exh.13 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1280 of 2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order : < WXY>(i) The Civil Revision Application is allowed. (ii) The order dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur below Exh.13 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1280 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and the application Exh.13 is hereby allowed. (iii) The Regular Civil Suit No. 1280 of 2019 is dismissed being barred by Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iv) Decree be drawn accordingly.</ WXY>