trespassing into the suit property. In the earlier suit, the court found that the first defendant is also in possession of the suit property and consequently declined to grant the injunction sought by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff was given a decree in the said suit restraining the first defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed an execution petition alleging that the first defendant trespassed into the suit property on 10.6.2009. The execution court in the said proceedings found that the allegations levelled against the judgment debtor by the decree holder is incorrect and dismissed the execution petition. When the present suit came up for hearing, the trial court took the view that since the plaintiff has filed an application to execute the decree in O.S.No.334 of 2008 alleging that the first defendant has trespassed into the property on 10.6.2009 and since the said execution petition was dismissed holding that the said allegation of the plaintiff is incorrect, the present suit on the very same cause of action is barred by res judicata . Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed
