IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.20 of 2007 Triyogi Rai, Son of Late Mathura Rai, resident of village and P.O. Purahara, P.S. Chauri (Sahar), District – Bhojpur at Ara. … Defendant/Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Bachan Rai, Son of Late Ramadhar Rai 2. Ashok Kumar Rai, Son of Sri Ram Bachan Rai 3. Gauri Shankar Rai, Son of Sri Ram Bachan Rai All residents of village and P.O. Purahara, P.S. Chauri (Sahar), District – Bhojpur at Ara. … Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties 1st Set. 4. Janardan Rai, Son of Sukhdeo Rai 5. Sudarshan Rai, Son of Guput Rai 6. Dunmun Rai, Son of Dudhan Rai 7. Sheo Prasad Rai, Son of Ram Bilash Rai 8. Sumeshwar Rai, Son of Sukhdeo Rai 9. Nagmano Kuer, Wife of Late Rameshwar Rai. All residents of village and P.O. – Purahara, P.S. Chauri ( Sahar), District – Bhojpur at Ara. … Defendants/Opposite Parties 2nd Set. For the Petitioner : - Sri Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate For the O.Ps. : - Sri Ravindra Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 06/ 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 01.09.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Bhojpur at Ara rejected his petition filed in Title Suit No. 323 of 1998 on the point of res judicata. 3. The learned court below has considered the entire matter in detail and has specifically found that the plaintiffs – opposite parties 1st set were not parties to the earlier suits and in his absence the question of his heirship had been decided and hence the decisions referred to by the defendant were not binding upon the plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been held earlier that plaintiff was a son from concubine and not from - 2 - a legally wedded wife and hence he was not entitled to any inheritance. This submission of the finding is absolutely against the settled principle of law and hence any order contrary to law cannot be legally held to be res judicata specially for a person, who was not even a party to the earlier suit or proceeding. 5. The learned court below has rightly found that the recent suit has been filed for partition and injunction and is not barred by the principle of res judicata. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the court below. 6. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)