Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.)On 27.4.2007, this appeal came to admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether a decision rendered under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC is a decree and will operate as res judicata and bar a second suit for the same relief. It so, whether the findings of the learned courts below that the case is not hit by res judicata are sustainable in the eyes of law?

2. Whether the learned courts below have arrived at a right conclusion by holding that the order dated 25.3.2000 (Ext. DW1/A) will not bar a second suit oblivious of the fact that the issues No. 1& 2 framed thereof have been decided against the plaintiff in the subsequent suit inter se the parties regarding the same subject matter and cause of action?

The parties shall be referred to as the "plaintiff" and "defendant".

(2.)The un-controverted facts are that the plaintiff/respondent prior to filing of the instant suit had filed a civil suit (C.S. No. 83/2000, titled as Dau Dayal vs. Asha Devi) for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant/appellant before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu and the same was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC on 25.3.2000 when the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence despite several opportunities.
(3.)It is thereafter that the instant suit qua the same property bearing Khasra No. 2552/2303, Khata/Khatauni No. 1013/1020, situated in Phatti Balh, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. came to be filed. The plaintiff claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove, pull down and demolish the shed measuring 111.92 sq. feet as shown in the site plan in pink colour marked by letters 'ABCDEF' raised by the defendant in absence and without the consent of the plaintiff wrongly and illegally over the slab of the plaintiff and further directing the defendant to put the suit land into its original position and in the alternative, suit for possession.