IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.244 of 2008 Siya Ram Mandal, son of Late Chhote Lal Mandal, resident of village-Garh Mohini, P.S. Gogri, District-Khagaria … Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Petitioner VERSUS 1. Sulo Devi wife of Late Birendra Kumar Chaurasia 1-A. Rajeev Kumar 1-B. Babu Kumari 1-C. Sujit Kumar All sons & daughter of Late Birendra Kumar Chaurasia, under the guardianship of their mother. Residents of –Garh Mohini, P.S. Gogri, District-Khagaria. 2. Krishna Deo Prasad Chaurasia, son of Late Ram Sharan Prasad Chaurasia, R/o village-Garh Mohini, P.S.-Gogri, District-Khagaria. ...... Defendants-Respondents 1st party-Appellants- Respondents. ----------- 02/ 02.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 26.08.2008 by which Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 2006 was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to confine his decision only to the aspect of the applicability of res judicata by calling upon the parties to adduce their evidence both oral and documentary on the said issue and decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 75 of 1991, which was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and alternatively recovery of possession as well as for injunction. However, vide order dated 02.04.1996 the said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Khagaria on the principles of res judicata as it was found that 2 earlier Title Suit No. 29 of 1966 (12/1969) was already fought by Mangal Singh and others on the one hand and Santu Mandal and others on the other hand, and the suit was decided in favour of Mangal Singh and against Santu Mandal, whereafter Santu Mandal filed title appeal which was dismissed and even the second appeal filed by him was dismissed by this court. Against the said order dated 02.04.1996 the defendants filed M.T.A. No. 10 of 1996 which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Khagaria vide order dated 05.12.2005 setting aside the order passed in the title suit, remanding the matter to the court below and directing the trial court to decide the question of res judicata afresh along with other issues at the time of final hearing of the suit. The said order of the lower appellate court dated 05.12.2005 was challenged by the appellants-respondents in M.A. No. 58 of 2006. While deciding the said miscellaneous appeal the learned Single Judge of this court considered the matter in detail and found that the question of res judicata is the main issue of law on the basis of which the matter can be decided, as the plaintiff has to establish by evidence that the lands and subject matter of the earlier Title Suit No. 29 of 1966 were not the same as is in the present Title Suit No. 75 of 1991. Hence the said miscellaneous appeal was disposed of on 26.08.2008 directing the trial court to confine its decision only to the aspect of the applicability of res- 3 judicata by calling upon the parties to adduce their evidence both oral and documentary and decide the matter within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. The issue of res-judicata is a question of law and since the decision on the said question of law required some evidence to show the subject matter, the parties and the properties involved in the earlier suit. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find any fresh material which was not available with the petitioner earlier nor even this court finds any other reason to take a view different from the view taken by this court in order dated 26.08.2008. Accordingly this civil review petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)