ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in I.A.No.197 of 2023 in O.S.No.24 of 2022, dated 01.03.2024, wherein, the learned trial Court dismissed the IA filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.10 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. 2. Heard Sri P. Sri Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Venkateshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit vide O.S.No.24 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, seeking partition and allotment of their respective share in respect of the schedule property i.e., agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8.34 gts., in Sy.No.506 and Ac.3.17 gts., in Sy.No.507, total admeasuring Acs.12.11 gts., situated at Gopalpet Village, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy District. Even prior to filing of the above said suit, Boini Pandari, Boini Rajashekar and Boini Ravinder have filed a suit vide O.S.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy seeking partition and allotment of their respective share in respect of the very same schedule property and the said suit is pending. The suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.24 of 2022 is not maintainable and the principles of res judicata apply. 4. Learned counsel further contended that the cause of action mentioned in the earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.1 of 2020 and in O.S.No.24 of 2022 are different and the petitioners therein have not paid property court fee. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.197 of 2023 in O.S.No.24 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the above said grounds. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide its order dated 01.03.2024. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are not applicable and the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application. 6. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are not applicable and the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed Suit O.S.No.24 of 2022 on the file of Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy seeking partition and allotment of respective shares in respect of scheduled property to an extent of Acs.12.11 guntas, situated at Gopalpet Village, Nagireddypet Mandal, Kamareddy District against the revision petitioners as well as respondent Nos.3 to 12. Even prior to filing of the said suit, Boini Pandari, Boini Rajashekar and Boini Ravinder have filed Suit O.S.No.1 of 2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, seeking partition and allotment of respective shares in respect of very same scheduled property. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.24 of 2022 were not the parties in O.S.No.1 of 2020 and plaintiffs in O.S.No.1 of 2020 are not parties in O.S.No.24 of 2022 except plaintiff No.2-Boini Rajashekar who is made as party defendant No.13. However the scheduled property mentioned in both the suits is one and same. Revision petitioners filed I.A.No.197 of 2023 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that same operates res-judicata and also on the ground of cause of action. 7. It is relevant to extract Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as follows: 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 the 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. For the case on hand, the principle of res-judicata is not applicable, on the ground that the Suit O.S.No.1 of 2020 is still pending and the Court has not decided the suit. In so far as the cause of action is concerned, respondent Nos.1 and 2 specifically mentioned the cause of action in the paragraph 12 of plaint in O.S.No.24 of 2022. In so far as the cause of action is concerned, respondent Nos.1 and 2 specifically mentioned the cause of action in the paragraph 12 of plaint in O.S.No.24 of 2022. Hence, this Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 01.03.2024, passed by the learned Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy District and the same is confirmed. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-plaintiffs in revision petition, requested this Court to transfer the subsequent suit i.e., O.S.No.24 of 2022 to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy where O.S.No.1 of 2020 is pending, to avoid conflicting judgment. 10. In view of the above said submissions made by the respective parties, they are granted liberty to file necessary application before the Court below for transfer of suits to one Court and on such application the Court below is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 11. With the above directions, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.