IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22933 of 2011 Shri Jiyalal Rai Versus Smt.Paniya Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 22.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by Sub Judge V, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No.4 of 2005 whereby the learned Court below imposed cost of Rs.5,000 on the petitioner and held that resjudicata is not applicable in this present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while allowing the application filed by the petitioner to contest the suit, the learned Court below imposed cost of Rs.5,000 and, therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved against imposing cost only. So far second question i.e. question of resjudicata is concerned, according to the learned counsel, the subject matter of the present suit was not subject matter of the earlier Tile Suit No.190 of 2000 filed by the present defendants against others and the suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. Therefore, the present suit filed by the respondent no.1, Smt. Paniya Devi is barred by principles of resjudicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears 2 that the learned Court below found that the entire subject matter of earlier suit is not the subject matter of present suit because the plaintiff-respondent no.1 is claiming title on the basis of sale deed with respect to 15 dhurs only and she was not party in the earlier suit, therefore, dismissed the application. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)