JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. Instant First Appeal is preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 15.04.2015 in Civil Suit No.5/2012 (101/2008)(81/2008), whereby learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, has dismissed the Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff. 2. In this matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of SLP (Civil) Diary No.46786/2023 on 13.12.2023, has observed that the matter should be listed before appropriate Bench for disposal. 3. Having considered the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are disposing of the instant First Appeal. 4. Learned Senior Advocate for appellant relying upon judgments in the case of V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava : 2004 (1) SCC 551 ; Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. : (2018) 16 SCC 228 ; Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla & Ors.: (2005) 5 SCC 390 ; Gurucharansingh and Ors. v. Mst. Gurdayal Kaur And Ors.: AIR 1982 (Raj.) 91 ; Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal : AIR 1964 SC 1810 and Smt. Kaushalya Devi vs. State of Rajasthan : RLW 1989(2) 380, would submitted that the learned Trial Court without recording findings on issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 has dismissed the Civil suit only on the basis of issue No.12 and same is against the provisions of law. He further submitted that there are basic principles to attract Section 11 of CPC, but the Trial Court has failed to consider the aforesaid. He specifically referred the fact that the Trial Court was required to consider that the issue raised in the instant suit was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, but herein, the Trial Court neither opined that the issue in the previous suit was same as raised by the appellant-plaintiff in this suit, therefore, subsequent suit is hit by Section 11 of CPC. He also submitted that the defendants had failed to place on record the pleadings of the previous proceedings, claimed by the defendants as concluded judgment on present land. 5. He further submitted that in absence of pleadings of previously decided matters, the Trial Court cannot decide issue No.12 against the appellant-plaintiff. He also submitted that it was the duty of the Trial Court to decide all issues in accordance with provisions under Order XIV of CPC. 5. He further submitted that in absence of pleadings of previously decided matters, the Trial Court cannot decide issue No.12 against the appellant-plaintiff. He also submitted that it was the duty of the Trial Court to decide all issues in accordance with provisions under Order XIV of CPC. He also raised the procedural lapse by the Trial Court and submitted that any issue, if the same is a legal issue, then it has to be decided as a first issue without resorting to full-fledged trial, but the Trial Court has not considered the provisions of CPC before throwing out the Civil Suit of the appellant. He also referred the judgments relied upon by the defendants and submitted that till the declaration of Khatedari right in Appeal by the Revenue Appellate Court, present appellant-plaintiff herein was not a party. He also submitted that any challenge in subsequent proceedings, cannot be considered as a proper proceeding to attract Section 11 CPC. He also submitted that the Trial Court has not only overstepped the judicial discipline, but it has decided the case in the most cursory and cryptic manner. At last, he submitted that the findings on other issues are not available on record, to decide the matter finally. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff has no right to institute a suit against the defendants and the Trial Court after considering the documents, which includes litigation from 19.03.1984 to 23.07.2008 relating to the disputed property has rightly decided issue No.12 in favour of defendants. He further submitted that the Trial Court has not erred while dismissing the suit only on the ground of res judicata and it has not committed any error while deciding the issue No.12 as first legal issue. He relied upon judgment in the case of Sathyanath and Anr. v. Sarojamani : (2022) 7 SCC 644 ; Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair : (1994) 2 SCC 14 ; Gulabchand v. State of Gujarat : AIR 1965 SC 1153 ; Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas : (2008) 11 SCC 753 ; Commissioner of Endowments & Ors. v Vittal Rao & Ors.: (2005) 4 SCC 120 and Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai and Anr.: (2003) 1 SCC 488 to fortify his contentions on attracting principle of res judicata by the Trial Court. 7. v Vittal Rao & Ors.: (2005) 4 SCC 120 and Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai and Anr.: (2003) 1 SCC 488 to fortify his contentions on attracting principle of res judicata by the Trial Court. 7. He further relied upon the judgments in the case of Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors.: (2009) 10 SCC 273 and submitted that even in any other suit for injunction, if the title was incidentally determined between the parties, then also same would operate as res judicata. He further submitted that the Revenue Appellate Authority in its judgment dated 10.12.1985 has declared Khatedary (right of land holding) in favour of defendants and subsequent to aforesaid in all proceedings, the rights of the defendants were cemented and fortified, therefore, the ownership of the suit property was conclusively established in favour of defendants. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error while adjudicating issue No.12 in favour of defendants. He also relied upon judgment of a coordinate Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Khazan Singh v. State of Haryana : RSA No. 571/2012 and of Chhattishgarh High Court in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Manishraj : Second Appeal No.114/2019 (Chhattisgarh High Court) and submitted that it is not necessary for the Trial Court to decide all other issues. He also submitted that if the Trial Court was of the opinion that only on the basis of one issue, the suit can be dismissed, then it can decide only one issue leaving other issues as undecided. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error while dismissing the Civil Suit on the basis of issue No.12 as first issue. At last, he submitted that the defendants are facing litigations since 1984 and still the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the title of defendants, therefore, the appeal is required to be dismissed with heavy costs. 8. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and learned counsels for the respondents-defendants. Perused the record of the Trial Court. Also perused the brief synopsis alongwith judgments as referred by both the parties. 9. In brief, the facts of the matter are that the appellant-plaintiff had instituted a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, which was transferred to learned Addl. Perused the record of the Trial Court. Also perused the brief synopsis alongwith judgments as referred by both the parties. 9. In brief, the facts of the matter are that the appellant-plaintiff had instituted a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, which was transferred to learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu for disposal in accordance with law. As per the facts mentioned in the plaint, a land, Khasra No.535 was a Government Nursery Land measuring 49 Bighas and 09 Biswas and out of this, 39 Bighas 14 Biswas was allocated to the Rajasthan Housing Board for construction of houses on 19.07.1975. Remaining 08 Bighas land was used for Board purpose and 01 Bigha was allotted to Dayanand Mahila Shiksha Sansthan, Jhunjhunu. After aforesaid, no land of Khasra No. 535 remains with the Municipal Board. The State Government vide order dated 19.07.1975 allotted 39 Bighas 15 Biswas of land for residential extension scheme to the plaintiff and since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the land. According to plaintiff, out of aforesaid land, 08 Bighas 07 Biswas was allotted to the Rajasthan Housing Board and on 08 Bighas of land road was constructed. About 1663 Sq. Yards of land of Khasra No. 535/1 measuring 39 Bighas and 15 Biswas was situated in the City as mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint and same is in possession of the plaintiff since 1975. 10. According to plaintiff, defendant No.1 instituted a Suit before the Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu for declaring him as Khatedar of 10 Biswas land in Khasra No.535/2, which was decided on 19.03.1984 and the Suit was dismissed, wherein it was held that Arjun Ram had no connection with the aforementioned land. The plaintiff-appellant was neither a party nor he was impleaded as a party. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has preferred Appeal No. 11/1984 before the Revenue Appellate Authority and on 10.12.1985, the judgment passed by Assistant Collector dated 19.03.1984 was set aside and decree was passed in favour of defendant No.1, wherein also the plaintiff was not a party. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition No. 4675/1994 before the Rajasthan High Court and vide judgment dated 07.10.1996, it was held that plaintiff is not bound by the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition No. 4675/1994 before the Rajasthan High Court and vide judgment dated 07.10.1996, it was held that plaintiff is not bound by the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court on 26.07.2001 on the ground that the matter does not fall within the purview of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff has filed a Misc. Appeal No. 772/2001 and same was withdrawn on the ground of availing alternative remedy. The plaintiff as a right to institute a Civil Suit, so filed a Suit for declaration in favour of plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 11. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by filing a written statement by the defendants, wherein they have denied the averments of the plaint and further asserted that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants was of Khasra No. 535/2 as Khasra No. 535 and 535/2 are different lands and both were recorded separately in the Revenue Records. The defendants stated that Khasra No. 535/2 having measurement of 09 Bighas and 15 Biswas and out of which 08 Bighas and 07 Biswas of land was allotted to Rajasthan Housing Board, but thereafter 01 Bigha and 05 Biswas of land still remains, for which, the plaintiff has not made any averments in the plaint. The defendants further submitted that no land was allotted to Dayanand Mahila Shiksha Sansthan, Jhunjhunu, out of Khasra No. 535/2. Further, no document was filed to support the averment that 08 Biswas of land was used for road. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. According to defendants, Khasra No. 535/2 is a land of Khatedari, belongs to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and area of 11 Biswas was wrongly shown as part of Khasra No. 535/1. The defendants challenged the site plan submitted with plaint and asserted that vide judgment dated 07.10.1996, this Hon'ble Court has not declared the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10.12.1985 as null and void. Further challenging the locus of plaintiff to file the suit, the defendants had raised the issue of res judicata as this issue was already settled between the parties, wherein defendants were declared as Khatedar of the disputed land. Further challenging the locus of plaintiff to file the suit, the defendants had raised the issue of res judicata as this issue was already settled between the parties, wherein defendants were declared as Khatedar of the disputed land. Further legal objections were raised by the defendants. 12. Learned Trial Court on the basis of pleading of the parties, has framed following issues:- 13. The Trial Court has resorted to full trial on all issues and during the trial, four witnesses were examined by the plaintiff and 22 documents were submitted by the plaintiff. In rebuttal, defendants examined one witness and also produced 29 documents. 14. After concluding the arguments of both the parties and also considering written submissions, filed in the matter and same is available in the record of the Trial Court, delivered the judgment on 15.04.2015. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 15.04.2015 opined that issue No.12 is a legal issue, therefore, it is appropriate to decide the issue No.12 as first issue. 15. The issue No.12 pertains to application of principle of res judicata as encapsulated under Section 11 of CPC. The Trial Court has decided issue No.12 and the Trial Court was of the opinion that the dispute relating to title and possession between the parties was finally decided by the Rajasthan High Court, therefore, the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principle of res judicata. After adjudication on issue No.12, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit and it has not recorded any findings on remaining issue Nos. 1 to 11 and 13 to 14. Thus, we are with half baked material (judgment). 16. A perusal of the entire record indicated that after full trial and affording full opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and also submit their arguments, the Trial Court has reserved the judgment on all issues, but it has rendered judgment only on issue No.12, which resulted into dismissal of the Civil Suit. 17. 16. A perusal of the entire record indicated that after full trial and affording full opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and also submit their arguments, the Trial Court has reserved the judgment on all issues, but it has rendered judgment only on issue No.12, which resulted into dismissal of the Civil Suit. 17. A perusal of the sequence of events in the instant case clearly indicate that the Trial Court after considering the matter on merits, has disposed of the Civil Suit only on the basis of issue No.12, but the Trial Court has not recorded deliberations on other issues, which means that the Trial Court after concluding trial and final submissions of both the parties, has delivered judgment only on one issue and on the basis of aforesaid conclusion, dismissed the Civil Suit of the appellant-plaintiff. 18. The provision of Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC is reproduced as under:- "Settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon- 1. .............................. 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue." 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mongia Realty and Buildwell Private Limited v. Manik Sethi : Civil Appeal No. 814/2022 (decided on 31.01.2022), has laid down that Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC provides that when issues of both law and facts arise in same suit, the Court may dispose of the suit by trying the issue of law first. The provision specifies two types of questions, which can be considered as question of law and same are (i) jurisdiction of the Court; (ii) a bar to the suit created by any law for time being in force. 20. In case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors.: (2020) 6 SCC 557 , a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if the issue of limitation is based on an admitted fact, it can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(b) of CPC, but if the facts surrounding the issue of limitation are disputed then it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- "47. In a case question of limitation can be decided based on admitted facts, it can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b). Once facts are disputed about limitation, the determination of the question of limitation also cannot be made under Order XIV Rule 2(2) as a preliminary issue or any other such issue of law which requires examination of the disputed facts. In case of dispute as to facts, is necessary to be determined to give a finding on a question of law. Such question cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. In a case, the question of jurisdiction also depends upon the proof of facts which are disputed. It cannot be decided as a preliminary issue if the facts are disputed and the question of law is dependent upon the outcome of the investigation of facts, such question of law cannot be decided as a preliminary issue, is settled proposition of law either before the amendment of CPC and post amendment in the year 1976." 21. In case of Sathyanath and Anr. v. Sarojamani (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the provision of Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC and followed the judgment in case of Ramesh B. Desai and Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors.: (2006) 5 SCC 638 . In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the mandate of Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC, has directed the Trial Court to record finding on all the issues so that the First Appellate Court may have advantage of the findings so recorded and to obliviate the possibility of remand, if the suit is decided only on preliminary issue. 22. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the mandate of Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC, has directed the Trial Court to record finding on all the issues so that the First Appellate Court may have advantage of the findings so recorded and to obliviate the possibility of remand, if the suit is decided only on preliminary issue. 22. Again, in case of The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 1347-1374 of 2022, while considering the judgment in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. The duty casted upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the Appellate Court and in many cases, if the decision on the issue decided, is found to be erroneous and on other issues, there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the Appellate Court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved. 23. Whenever, the Court has decided not to decide the issue of law as preliminary issue and opted to record evidence, then the Trial Court is duty bound to decide all issues on merits and it cannot leave any issue remained as undecided. The Trial Court is bound by the provision as amended under Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC to adjudicate on all issues. Again in the case of Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India :(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1322, Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon judgment in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors.(supra). 24. The Trial Court is bound by the provision as amended under Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC to adjudicate on all issues. Again in the case of Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India :(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1322, Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon judgment in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors.(supra). 24. Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC as amended provides that the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues, notwithstanding the fact that the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, in judgments as referred hereinabove clearly indicate that after settling the issues between the parties on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court may consider to dispose of the suit on the basis of preliminary issues, but these preliminary issues must be relating either to jurisdiction of the Court or to a bar created to the suit by any law for the time being in force. 25. Having considered the aforesaid, a fact is quite clear that after adopting the entire process of trial and concluding arguments on all issues, the Trial Court has disposed of the case only on one issue. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Trial Court is contrary to the provision of law as prescribed under Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC. 26. In view of aforesaid, the judgment of Khazan Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Manishraj (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, has no application. The provision of Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC is well interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, which include pre-amendment position and post-amendment position, but herein from the record, a fact is established that the Trial Court has disrespected the procedure under Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC while deciding the case on 15.04.2015, thus, the judgment of Trial Court is liable to be set aside only on this ground. 27. 27. Now, comes the question whether the entire judgment is required to be set aside as the issue No.12, which was already adjudicated against the appellant and the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents have advanced arguments assailing the findings on issue No.12, therefore, I find it appropriate to refer certain points in the instant matter though the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2015, is liable to be set aside only on the ground on non-observance of provision under Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC. 28. The timeline of important dates submitted by learned counsel for the respondents indicate that a Revenue Suit No. 224/1983 filed by the defendants was dismissed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu on 19.03.1984 and the judgment was exhibited as Ex.-2. It indicate that the Trial Court while adjudicating the rights of the parties on 19.03.1984, has not declared any right of tenancy in favour of defendant No.1. Moreover, a fact is also established that plaintiff-Municipal Board was not a party to the original proceedings before the SDO. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order (Ex.-2) passed on 19.03.1984, an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA') and same was allowed on 10.12.1985 (Ex.-3), wherein Arjun Ram was declared as Khatedar of land measuring Khasra No. 535/02. Herein also, the appellant-plaintiff was not a party. On 15.01.1991 and 05.02.1991, the Municipal Board (plaintiff) issued an advertisement for sale of land Khasra No.535/02 measuring 10 Biswas. On 04.02.1994, the land was mutated in favour of Arjun Ram. The Review Petition against the order of mutation dated 04.02.1994 was filed by the plaintiff herein, same was dismissed on 28.09.1994 and same was exhibited as Ex.-A/7. On a Revision Petition by Arjun Ram against advertisement for sale by the plaintiff herein, same was set aside and quashed on 04.05.1994/12.07.1994 and same was exhibited as Ex.-A/16. The Municipal Board filed SBCWP No. 4675/1994, wherein order dated 04.05.1994 was quashed. Thereafter, several proceedings between the parties were instituted and disposed between 26.12.1996 to 23.07.2008 (Ex.-A/19, A/20, A/21, A/22, A/23 and A/27). 29. The Municipal Board filed SBCWP No. 4675/1994, wherein order dated 04.05.1994 was quashed. Thereafter, several proceedings between the parties were instituted and disposed between 26.12.1996 to 23.07.2008 (Ex.-A/19, A/20, A/21, A/22, A/23 and A/27). 29. A perusal of the aforesaid timeline as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents clearly indicate that the dispute pertains to 10 Biswas of land, wherein rival claim of possession was also made by learned counsels during course of arguments, but herein we are refraining from commenting on merits of the case, as the Trial Court has not adjudicated other issues. 30. Herein the material on record or the documents exhibited by the parties clearly indicate that the Trial Court has considered the judgment dated 26.07.2001 (amended on 31.08.2001) and opined that all dispute pertaining to title and possession as raised by plaintiff-Municipal Board had attained finality and same are barred by principle of res judicata. 31. The concept of res judicata as encapsulated in Section 11 CPC and to attract the same, the following ingredients must be fulfilled according to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifs (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.: (1976) 4 SCC 780 :- "(i) The matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (ii) The matter must be heard and finally decided by the Court in the former suit; (iii) The former suit must be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) The Court in which the former suit was instituted is competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised." 32. The aforesaid clearly indicate that the Trial Court is required to adjudicate on the issue that the matter in the suit in hand was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. In case of Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (supra), a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provision of Order II, Rule 2(3) of CPC and Section 11 of CPC has held that it is the duty of the defendant to file in evidence pleading in previous suit. 33. In case of Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (supra), a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provision of Order II, Rule 2(3) of CPC and Section 11 of CPC has held that it is the duty of the defendant to file in evidence pleading in previous suit. 33. A perusal of record and also submission of learned counsels for the parties also indicate that the defendants-respondents herein had not filed any of the pleading of their basic suit, which was dismissed on 19.03.1984 and copy of order, was exhibited as Ex.-2. Thus, the claim of title by the defendants was arising out of Revenue Suit No. 224/1983, which was initially dismissed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu, but in appeal, same was decreed in favour of the defendants on 10.12.1985. The right of tenancy was awarded only on 10.12.1985, on the basis of claim made in Revenue Suit No. 224/1983, wherein present appellant (plaintiff) was not a party. 34. The Trial Court after noticing the judgments in favour of defendants, without considering whether the issue raised herein was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit or not, decided the issue No.12, therefore, the Trial Court without understanding the provision of Section 11 of CPC has adjudicated the issue No.12. 35. Learned counsel for respondents relied upon judgment in the case of Sathyanath and Anr. v. Sarojamani (supra); Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair (supra); Gulabchand v. State of Gujarat (supra); Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas (supra); Commissioner of Endowments & Ors. v Vittal Rao & Ors. (supra) and Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai and Anr. (supra), to fortify his contention on applicability of principle of res judicata. Since the essential conditions to invoke the provision of Section 11 of CPC were not fulfilled, while consideration by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, therefore, we cannot decide the applicability of res judicata in the instant case on the basis of finding on issue No.12 and also on the principle of law as referred by learned counsel for respondents. 36. Learned Senior Advocate for appellant-plaintiff also referred the judgment in the case of V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava (supra); Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. (supra) and Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla & Ors. 36. Learned Senior Advocate for appellant-plaintiff also referred the judgment in the case of V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava (supra); Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. (supra) and Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla & Ors. (supra), to fortify his contention on principle of res judicata again we are not considering the fact on merits of the case as the Trial Court has failed to consider basics for applicability of Section 11 of CPC. 37. In case of S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao and Ors.: AIR 2022 SC 5317 , Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment of Constitution Bench in the case of Daryao and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.: AIR 1961 SC 1457 , has observed that though the rule of res judicata has some technical aspect, but the basis on which the said rule rests is founded on considerations of public policy. It is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. 38. After considering the law over the point, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has not only abruptly aborted the litigation between the parties, it avoided the adjudication on all issues. The approach of the Trial Court is highly deplorable. This Court has no option except to remand the matter even on issue No.12 as same was not considered on the basis of principle of law, which requires to be adhered to prior to invocation of the provision. 39. In view of aforesaid, the instant First Appeal, is liable to be allowed and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Trial Court. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 13.12.2023 has observed the agony of duration of litigation, therefore, it would be appropriate to issue a direction to the Trial Court for disposal of the Civil Suit within a period of four months from receipt of the record. 40. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant S.B. Civil First Appeal preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 15.04.2015 in Civil Suit No.5/2012 (101/2008) (81/2008) passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, is hereby allowed and the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2015, is set aside. 40. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant S.B. Civil First Appeal preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 15.04.2015 in Civil Suit No.5/2012 (101/2008) (81/2008) passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, is hereby allowed and the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2015, is set aside. 41. The Civil Suit is remanded back to the Trial Court for decision afresh including decision on issue No.12 also, but without being influenced from earlier adjudication on issue No.12 by learned Trial Court on 15.04.2015. 42. The parties are directed to appears before the Trial Court on 15.04.2024. 43. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.