ORDER : 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 5, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Original Suit No. 49/2019 (NCV No. 49/2019) whereby issue No. 8 as framed has been decided. 2. As an averment regarding the suit being barred by res judicata was raised by the defendants vide an application under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the said application was allowed vide order dated 18.10.2021 and in pursuance to the same, learned trial Court proceeded on to decide issue No. 8 as a preliminary issue. Issue No. 8 read as under: ^^D;k okn oknhx.k /kkjk 11 lh-ih-lh- ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\** Learned Court below decided the said issue against the defendants and held the suit not to be barred by res judicata. 3. Averment of the defendants was that earlier a suit qua the same suit property was instituted [Civil Suit No. 41/2012(146/2012)] which suit had been finally adjudicated and decided vide judgment dated 03.06.2017. The present suit also pertains to the same property, only the names of the plaintiffs have been changed. The plaintiffs in both the matters have instituted the suit under the same capacity arising out of the same title. Earlier suit was filed by Meghvanshi Vikas Samiti whereas the present suit in representative capacity has been filed on behalf of Meghwal Samaj. The matter in issue in the present suit was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit and the said suit having been heard and finally decided, the present suit by the parties who claim to be litigating under the same title cannot be tried by the Court and the earlier suit would definitely operate as res judicata to the present suit. 4. The case of the defendants was that the present is a representative suit. 4. The case of the defendants was that the present is a representative suit. The earlier suit was filed by one Samiti claiming ownership which was dismissed by the Court with a specific finding that the property in question was not a part of its “Vidhan Namaavali.” Further, the cause of action for the present suit is also totally different as defendants No. 1, 3 & 4 to the present suit have executed a release deed dated 12.09.2018 in favour of defendant No. 2 by virtue of which defendant No. 2 has sold out the property to defendant No. 5 and has even handed over the possession to him. Therefore, neither the parties to both the suits are common nor the cause of action is the same. The findings in the earlier suit cannot bind the present plaintiffs as they have instituted the present suit in a representative capacity. It was also the case of defendants that the order dated 18.09.2019 vide which the application under section 11 of CPC had already been rejected by the Court and which order having not been challenged further, has become final for all the purposes. Therefore, the issue already having been decided, the same cannot be agitated again by the plaintiffs. 5. Learned trial Court proceeded on to decide the issue with a specific finding that the earlier suit was instituted only against Poona Ram whereas the present suit has been instituted for cancellation of release deed by his son and daughter in favour of defendant No. 5 and for recovery of possession from defendant No. 5 impleading all of them as party defendants. Therefore, although the suit property is the same, the cause of action and the issues of dispute between the parties are totally different from the earlier suit and even the parties to the suit are also not the same. Further, the order dated 18.09.2019 whereby the Court specifically held the suit not to be barred by res judicata has not been challenged and therefore also, issue No. 8 was not held to be proved by the defendants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Further, the order dated 18.09.2019 whereby the Court specifically held the suit not to be barred by res judicata has not been challenged and therefore also, issue No. 8 was not held to be proved by the defendants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Admittedly, the earlier suit in the year 2012 was filed by one Meghvanshi Vikas Samiti against Poona Ram for following reliefs : ^^¼1½ fd dCts dh fMdzh cgd oknh laLFkk cjf[kykQ izfroknh lkfnj Qjekrs gq, oknh laLFkk dks fookfnr tk;nkn ftlds gnwn o fooj.k vthZnkos ds in la[;k 3 ¼rhu½ esa fn, x, gSa] dk dCtk nq:Lr gkyr esa izfroknh ls fnyok;k tkosA ¼2½ fd rkjh[k nkok ls rkjh[k izkfIr dCtk rd :i;s 5]000@& ¼ikap gtkj :i;s½ ekgokj okijkl gtkZuk Hkh oknh laLFkk dks izfroknh ls fnyok;k tkosA ¼3½ fd LFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk dh fMdzh cgd oknh laLFkk cjf[kykQ izfroknh lkfnj Qjekrs gq, izfroknh dks ikcan fd;k tkos fd og oknh laLFkk dks dCtk izkfIr ds mijkar oknh laLFkk ds csn[ky ugha djsa o oknh laLFkk ds 'kkafriwoZd mi;ksx&miHkksx esa fdlh rjg dh dksbZ n[kykankth ;k O;o/kku mRiUu u rks Lo;a djsa] u djokos vkSj u gh bl ij viuk dksbZ gd] fgLlk o vf/kdkj Dyse djsA ¼4½ fd bl nkos dk reke- [kpkZ oknh laLFkk dks izfroknh ls fnyok;k tkosA ¼5½ fd vU; mfpr vuqrks”k tks oknh laLFkk ds i{k esa o izfroknh ds fo:) ikfjr djuk vko';d o U;k;laxr gks] og ikfjr Qjek;k tkosA** 8. The present suit in the year 2019 has been filed by the plaintiffs against five defendants with the following prayers: ^^fMdzh cgd oknhx.k@es?koky lekt fo:) izfroknhx.k fuEu izdkj ls ikfjr dh tkos%& ¼v½ ;g gS fd okni= dh in la[;k 1 ¼pkj½ ¼c½ esa of.kZr oknxzLr lEifr edku tks es?kokyksa dh xokMh ;kfu eksgYyk@ckl ?kksMksa dk pkSd tks/kiqj esa fLFkr gS] dks es?koky lekt] es?kokyksa ds ckl ?kksMksa dk pkSd tks/kiqj ds fuoklhx.k dh lkoZtfud fgr o mi;ksx dh lEifr ?kksf”kr fd;k tkosA ¼c½ ;g gS fd okni= dh in la[;k 4 ¼c½ esa of.kZr lEifr edku ds fgLls okni= dh in la[;k 11 ¼X;kgjk½ esa of.kZr ls izfroknhx.k dks csn[ky djrs gq, mDr tk;nkn dk [kkyh dCtk izfroknhx.k ls es?koky lekt ds fy;s oknhx.k dks lqiqnZ djok;k tkosA ¼l½ ;g gS fd okni= dh in la[;k 4 ¼c½ esa of.kZr lEifr edku ds fgLls okni= dh in la[;k 11 ¼X;kgjk½ esa of.kZr ds mi;ksx o miHkksx dh jkf'k crkSj gtkZuk varfje ykHkka”k ds :i esa rkjh[k nkok ls mDr lEifr dk [kkyh dCtk es?koky lekt ds fy;s oknhx.k dks lqiqnZ djok;s tkus rd :i;s 15000@& v{kjs iUnzgk gtkj izfrekg dh nj ls izfroknhx.k ls es?koky lekt ds fy;s oknhx.k dks fnyok;s tkosA ¼n½ ;g gS fd okni= dh in la[;k 19 ¼amUuhl½ esa of.kZr gdrdZukek fnukad 12-9-2018 ¼ckjg ukS nkS gtkj vBkgjk½ okni= dh dh in la[;k 4 ¼pkj½ ¼c½ esa of.kZr oknxzLr lEifr ckcr fcuk vf/kdkj ds izfroknh la[;k 1] 3] o 4 ¼,d] rhu o pkj½ ds }kjk izfroknh la[;k 2 ¼nks½ ds i{k esa fu”ikfnr djrs gq, iath;u djok;k x;k gS] vkSj tks gdrdZukek fnukad mi&iathd tks/kiqj r`rh; }kjk fnukad 12-09-2018 ¼ckjg ukS nks gtkj vBkgjk½ dks iqLrd la[;k 1] ftYn la[;k 963 esa i`”V la[;k 20 dze la[;k 201803053108636 ij izfroknh la[;k 2 ds i{k esa iathc) fd;k x;k gS] es?kokyksa ds ckl ?kksMksa ds pkSd tks/kiqj ds fuoklhx.k es?koky lekt ds O;kfDr;ksa ;kfu lnL;ksa ds vf/kdkjksa ds fo:) fu”izHkkoh] csvlj o 'kqU; ?kksf”kr fd;k tkosA ¼;½ ;g gS fd izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk dh fMdzh tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknhx.k okni= dh in la[;k 4 ¼pkj½ ¼c½ o okni= dh in la[;k 11 ¼X;kgjk½ esa of.kZr oknxzLr tk;nkn ;k bldk dksbZ Hkh fgLlk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fdlh vU; dks gLrkUrj.k djrs gq, dCtk lqiqnZ ugha djs ,oa oknxzLr tk;nkn esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dksbZ rksMQksM] j)kscny ,oa fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djs o tks [kqyk HkqHkkx es?koky lekt ds vf/kdkj o vkf/kiR; esa pyk vk jgk gS] ml HkqHkkx dk es?koky lekt }kjk mi;ksx o miHkksx djus ,oa fuekZ.k dk;Z djokus esa fdlh izdkj ls dksbZ :dkoV ,oa ck/kk u rks Lo;a mRiUu djs vkSj u gh fdlh vU; ls djkosA ¼j½ ;g gS fd [kpkZ okn izfroknhx.k ls oknhx.k dks fnyk;k tkosA ¼y½ ;g gS fd vU; dksbZ mfpr vkns'k tks izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, oknhx.k ds gd esa gks ikfjr fd;k tkosA** 9. The Court, while deciding the application under section 11, CPC, after considering the earlier judgment dated 03.06.2017 concluded as under: ^^bl fook|d fo'ys”k.k dk voyksdu djus ij ;g izdV gksrk gS fd es?koa'kh fodkl lfefr }kjk oknxzLr tk;nkn ij viuk LokfeRo izn'kZ 3 iV~Vs esa of.kZr tk;nkn lfefr dks vkcafVr gksus ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; ds foospu ls ;g fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk fd es?koa'kh fodkl lfefr ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgh gS fd oknxzLr tk;nkn ftlls lacaf/kr iV~Vk izn'kZ 3 izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk og tk;nkn oknh lfefr dks vkcafVr gqbZ gks vkSj eq[; :i ls blh vk/kkj ij es?koa'kh fodkl lfefr dk okn U;k;ky; }kjk vLohdkj fd;k x;k FkkA U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k 1 ds fo'ys”k.k esa pj.k la[;k 12 esa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd oknh lfefr ;g izekf.kr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgh gS fd fookfnr lEifr ogha lEifRr gks] ftldk mYys[k lEifRr ds rFkkdfFkr fu;e izn'kZ 2 esa fd;k x;k gS vkSj iV~Vk izn'kZ 3 esa mYysf[kr lEifRr oknh es?koa'kh fodkl lfefr dks vkoafVr fd;s tkus Hkh oknh izekf.kr ugha ldrs gSaA vFkkZr~ mijksDr iwoZofr okn esa i{kdkj Hkh leku ugha Fks rFkk ftl vk/kkj ij es?koa'kh fodkl lfefr us oknxzLr tk;nkn ij viuk Lokfero gksuk crk;k Fkk og vk/kkj vc gLrxr okn esa oknhx.k }kjk lEifRr ij crk;s x;s vius vf/kdkj ds rF; iw.kZr;k fHkUu gSA gkykafd oknxzLr tk;nkn ogha gS] tks iwoZofr okn esa Fkh] ijUrq i{kdkjksa ds e/; fookfnr fcUnw ,oa okn gsrq nksuksa gh iwoZofr okn ls fHkUu gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd gLrxr okn jsltqMhdsVk ds fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij ckf/kr gksA** 10. A bare perusal of the reliefs as prayed for by the plaintiffs of the earlier suit, those in the present suit and the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Court makes it clear that firstly, parties to both the suits are different secondly, the plaintiffs in both the suits have claimed their right on total different grounds thirdly, the cause of action in both the suits is totally different fourthly, the issues for determination in both the suits are totally different and fifthly, it cannot be concluded that if one specific person/society has failed to prove his/its ownership over the land, any other person/persons would be precluded from claiming his/their ownership/title over the said land. 11. 11. In the present suit, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiffs have claimed their title through the plaintiff society of the earlier suit. Consequently, the present suit cannot be held to be barred by principle of res judicata in any manner. So far as the judgments relied upon by counsel for the appellants are concerned, there is no dispute about the settled proposition of law that it is not permissible to obtain second judgment for the same relief on the same cause of action and that earlier decision between the same parties and the same matter in controversy would operate as res judicata for the subsequent suit. The said ratio would definitely not apply to the present matter, it being held that neither the parties, nor the subject matter or the cause of action are same. Further, it is also the settled proposition of law that the words “finally decided” indicate that such decision should be a judicial determination on the matter in issue and what has not been so determined cannot operate as a bar. 12. In view of the above analysis and observations, the order impugned does not deserve any interference by this Court being in total conformity with law. Consequently, the present revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 13. The stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.