Short answer. No, not once that dismissal stands. Rule 15, Section 13 lists a finding that the claim has already been paid as one of the grounds whose dismissal bars refiling the same action. Your remedy at that point is to appeal the dismissal itself, not to file the same claim over again in a new case.
What the law says
that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished
Rule 15, Section 13 — Dismissal with prejudice. Read the full provision →
Payment is expressly one of the barring grounds
Section 13 lists specific reasons for dismissal that carry a particular consequence: refiling is barred. Among them is a finding that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, along with waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished. If the court dismissed your case because it found the debt had already been paid, that dismissal falls squarely within this ground, and the rule treats it the same as a dismissal on a prior judgment or the statute of limitations — it ends the matter, not just that particular filing.
The other grounds treated the same way
The rule groups several distinct grounds under this one consequence: the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations, the claim has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished, or the claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. What links them is that each one, if correctly found, means the plaintiff has no live claim left to bring — not that the plaintiff filed in the wrong place or made a curable procedural mistake, which are the kinds of dismissals that ordinarily leave refiling open.
Why 'subject to the right of appeal' matters here
The provision opens with that qualifier for a reason: the bar attaches to the order dismissing the case, and that order remains subject to appeal like any other. If you believe the court got the facts wrong — that the debt was not actually paid, or the evidence of payment was insufficient — the avenue is to appeal that dismissal, not to file the same claim again in a fresh case. Refiling does not give you a second chance to relitigate a factual finding the first court already made against you.
What this does not do
This bar applies to the same action or claim — the same debt, based on the same facts, between the same parties. It does not, by itself, describe every dismissal a court can issue; not every dismissal carries this consequence, which is exactly why the rule singles out prior judgment, the statute of limitations, payment or extinguishment, and the statute of frauds for it specifically. A claim genuinely different from the one dismissed, arising from separate facts, is not the same action this provision was written to close off.