%04.8.2011 Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ±CM(M) No.536/2010 & CM No.7275/2010 (for stay) The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 10.9.2009 whereby the application filed by the defendant under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed. The impugned order has noted that the first suit was a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction; that suit was dismissed on 05.9.2009. It had not been dismissed on merits; a preliminary issue had been framed about the maintainability of the suit; on the preliminary issue the suit had stood dismissed. The frçontention of the plaintiff in that suit was that he is the owner of the suit property and he had inducted defendant no.1 as a tenant who had sublet itjlega11y defendants no.2 to 4; suit had accordingly been filed. As noted supra this suit had not been decided on the merits of the controversy. The second suit was a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Parties are admittedly the same but in this case the prayer was also distinct and different; prayer was that a decree of declaration s be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring the alleged sale deed purported to have being Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified executed by the defendant on 24.9.1999 be declared null and void. Pleadings in the first suit and the second suit are distinct and different. That apart since the first decision ws not on its merits; doctrine of res judicata as envisaged in Section 11 of the Code does not apply. Impugned order does not call for a y interference Petition is dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 04, 2011 nandan 'I.