IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.461 of 2009 Meena Devi, wife of Bal Mukund Singh, alias Dinesh Singh, resident of village and Post- Methwalia, P.S. Revilganj, District- Saran. ….Plaintiff…Appellant…Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Sagar Singh, son of late Chhabinath Singh. 2. Yogendra Singh, son of Shishupal Singh. 3. Surajdeo Singh, son of Shishupal Singh. 4. Bal Mukund Singh, son of Shishupal Singh. 5. Hare Krishna Singh, son of Yogendra Singh. 6. Rakesh Singh, son of Surajdeo Singh. Above all are residents of village and post- Methwalia, P.S. - Revilganj, District- Saran. ….Defendant…Respondent…Opp. Parties. ----------- 03- 23.11.2011 Heard Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh for opposite party nos.1 and 3. The plaintiff of Title Suit No.353 of 2004 has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2008, whereby Title Appeal No.50 of 2006 has been dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chapra, Saran, who, in his turn, has upheld the judgment in the suit, and it has been held that the suit is not maintainable. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. The defendants of the present Title Suit 2 No.353 of 2004, had earlier instituted Title Suit No.175 of 1991, which was in substance in the nature of a partition suit and was withdrawn. He, therefore, preferred Title Suit No.126 of 1993, for the same cause of action which was decreed. The ancestors of the plaintiff of the instant suit preferred appeal which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 22.5.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge 10th court, Chapra, and upheld the judgment of the learned trial court in Title Suit No.126 of 1993. They preferred second appeal in this Court which was dismissed by judgment dated 23.1.2003, whereafter the judgment and decree has been executed. 2.1) Thereafter the present petitioner instituted the instant Title Suit No.353 of 2004 on just the same cause of action as in Title Suit No.126 of 1993. The same has been dismissed by judgment dated 19.10.2006 on the ground of res-judicata and non-maintainability of the suit. The plaintiff of the present suit preferred the present Title Appeal No.50 of 2006, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on just the same grounds as in the suit. 3 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is thus evident that the subject-matter of Title Suit No.126 of 1993, was effectively adjudicated and was upheld up to the High Court in second appeal. Therefore, another suit on self-same facts and for the same cause of action would obviously be hit by the bar of limitation engrafted in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have rightly held that Title Suit No.353 of 2004, is not maintainable, and is hit by the bar of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. This civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/