LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, September 2, 2021

Or.7 rule 11 CPC - the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized as follows: (i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to; (ii) The defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application; (iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the ‘previous suit’ is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and (iv) Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.


Or.7 rule 11 CPC - the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized as follows:

(i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to;

(ii) The defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application;

(iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that 

(i) the ‘previous suit’ is decided, 

(ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were

directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; 

(iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating

under the same title; and 

(iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and

(iv) Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 4665 2021

Arising out of SLP (C) No.3899 of 2021

Srihari Hanumandas Totala ...Appellant

Versus

Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 18 January 2021 of a Single Judge

at the Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The revisional jurisdiction of

the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”) was

invoked for challenging an order dated 1 July 2019 of the IInd Additional Senior Civil 

2

Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belgaum on an application1 under Order 7 Rule

11 of the CPC.

3 Ms. Leela Vithal Kamat was the title holder of the suit property. On her death

on 16 May 1996, the property was mutated in the names of her legal heirs – the first

respondent and his brother. The first respondent and his brother took a loan from

the Karnataka State Finance Corporation (“KSFC”) and mortgaged the suit property

as security for repayment of the loan. Since the loan was not repaid, KSFC

auctioned the property. The third respondent, who is the predecessor-in-interest of

the appellant, furnished the highest bid of Rs. 15,00,000. A sale deed of the suit

property was executed in favour of the third respondent on 8 August 2006. Despite

the execution of the sale deed, the first respondent and his brother failed to

handover the possession of the suit property and as a consequence a suit for

possession was filed by the third respondent on 13 March 2007. On 20 December

2007, the first respondent, who was impleaded as the second defendant to the suit

filed his written statement raising inter alia the following defences:

(i) KSFC had no authority to put the suit property on sale;

(ii) The second defendant (first respondent herein) had not taken any loan from

KSFC nor had any transaction with it. He had not executed any documents

offering the suit property as security; and

(iii) The second defendant had no concern with the borrower.

 1 IA No. VII in OS 138/2008. 

3

Issues were framed in the suit, among them being the following:

“4.Whether defendant No.2 KSFC had no authority to put the

suit property for sale?”

4 On 12 November 2008, the first respondent instituted a suit being OS No.

138/2008 challenging the sale deed dated 8 August 2006 executed by KSFC in

favour of the third respondent primarily on the ground that KSFC had no authority to

put the suit property for sale. He sought a partition of the suit property and

possession of his share. The first respondent made the following averments in the

plaint:

(i) The suit property was owned by the mother of the first respondent. After her

death, the suit property was inherited by the first respondent and his brother

and the first respondent has been in possession of this property from 1998 till

the filing of the suit;

(ii) The brother of the first respondent mortgaged the suit property with KFSC

without his consent and KFSC without investigating the title of the suit

property and verifying the underlying title documents, accepted the suit

property as security;

(iii) In 2004, the daughters of the first respondent’s brother had filed a suit for

partition and separate possession of the said suit property, where the first

respondent was a party. There was no mention made of a loan being

sanctioned by KFSC against the suit property; 

4

(iv) The first respondent did not consent to the mortgage of the suit property to

KFSC and executed no documents for this purpose; and

(v) The first respondent received knowledge of the sale deed executed by KFSC

in favour of the third respondent only when he appeared in the suit filed by the

third respondent-that is OS No. 103/2007. There is a possibility that the first

respondent could suffer a decree for possession in OS No. 103/2007. Thus,

the first respondent filed this suit for partition and possession to challenge the

validity of the sale deed and to claim his share in the suit property.

5 The following issues were framed by the Trial Court:

“1. Whether the description of suit property is correct

2. Whether plaintiff proves that he has purchased suit

property and he acquired valid title as pleaded

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property

4. Whether defendant No.2 proves that K.S.F .C. had no

authority to put the suit property for sale

5. Whether defendant No. 2 proves that there is no cause of

action for the suit

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree

7. What decree or order”

6 By a judgment dated 26 February 2009, the Trial Judge decreed the first suit

(OS No. 103/2007) that was instituted by the third respondent and directed the

defendants (first respondent and his brother) in the suit to hand over vacant and

peaceful possession of the suit property to the third respondent-plaintiff. The Trial

Court concluded that:

(i) The contention of the first respondent-defendant that KFSC did not have the

right to auction the suit property cannot be determined in the suit and must 

5

be challenged independently. The first respondent took no action to challenge

the auction or the sale deed executed between KFSC and the plaintiff-third

respondent till arguments were being heard by the Trial Court, though

evidence suggests that he had knowledge of the auction. The first respondent

acknowledged the receipt of the letter from KFSC. Moreover, KSFC was

impleaded as the fourth defendant in O.S No. 369/2004- the suit that was filed

by his brother’s daughters and it was averred in the plaint that the auction

notice by KSFC was null and void;

(ii) The defendant- first respondent had filed suit in OS No. 138/2008 for partition

and separate possession, where one of the reliefs claimed was that the sale

deed executed between the plaintiff-third respondent and KFSC was not

binding on the first respondent. Though an application was filed to club O.S

No. 103/2007 and O.S No. 138/2008, it was not allowed. Under these

circumstances, the validity of the sale deed cannot be determined in the

present suit, particularly when KFSC was not made a party to this suit. Thus,

the validity of the sale deed and the auction would have to be considered in

the other suit filed by the first respondent (OS No. 138/2008); and

(iii) On the date of the judgment of the court, the sale deed executed by the

plaintiff-third respondent and KFSC had not been set aside. Other than this

challenge, there was no other ground raised by the first respondent to

challenge the claim of possession of the plaintiff-third respondent. Based on

this, the sale deed is valid and title to the suit property is transferred to the 

6

third respondent – plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed executed by KSFC. The

third respondent had the right to take possession of the property.

7 The first respondent appealed against the judgment of the Trial Court before

the High Court2

. During the pendency of the appeal, the third respondent filed an

application under Section 10 of the CPC in OS No. 138/2008 for staying the suit

proceedings till the disposal of the first appeal from the judgment in OS No.

103/2007, on the ground that the issues involved in the second suit were directly

and substantially the same as the issues in the previous suit. The Trial Judge by an

order dated 3 November 2012 held that the issues involved in the previous suit for

possession and the subsequent suit for declaration filed by the first respondent were

directly and substantially the same. Hence the application was allowed and the

proceedings in the subsequent suit instituted by the first respondent were stayed.

8 The decree in the previous suit (OS No. 103/2007) was upheld by the High

Court by a judgment dated 11 August 2017. The High Court dismissed the appeal

with the following observations:

(i) The plaintiff-third respondent states that both the defendants (that is first

respondent and his brother) had borrowed the money. However, KSFC filed a

memo in Miscellaneous Petition No. 114/2003 stating that the first respondent

(second defendant therein) was not a guarantor; and

(ii) The application filed for clubbing O.S No. 138/2008 and O.S No. 103/2007

ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. Since the right of the first

 2 RFA No. 3037/2008.

7

respondent cannot be considered in the present proceedings arising out of

O.S No. 103/2007, the third respondent is entitled to the possession of the

suit property as he is a bona fide auction purchaser.

9 Pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the appellant who has purchased

the suit property from the third respondent, filed an application3 for rejection of plaint

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds of (i) non-payment of court fee; (ii)

non-disclosure of cause of action; and (iii) the suit being barred by res judicata. It

was contended that the suit instituted by the first respondent was barred by res

judicata as the grounds relating to the validity of the sale deed and the issue of title

were raised in the previous suit O.S No. 103/2007. The appellant urged that after the

judgment of the Trial Court, which had been affirmed by the High Court, the rights of

the parties cannot be further adjudicated and re-litigated upon.

10 The application under Order 7 Rule 11 was dismissed by the Trial Judge on 1

July 2019 for the following reasons:

(i) With respect to non-payment of the court fee, according to Order 7 Rule

11(c), a plaint would only be rejected if the plaint is written on a paper that is

insufficiently stamped, and the court requires the plaintiff to supply the

requisite stamp paper within a time fixed and despite such an order, the

plaintiff fails to do so. In this case, no such order was passed by the court;

(ii) The cause of action had been specifically pleaded by the first respondent in

paragraph 5 of the plaint; and

 3 IA No. VII dated 25 March 2019 in OS No. 138/2008.

8

(iii) In order to reject a plaint for the suit being barred by any law under Order 7

Rule 11(d), the court needs to be guided by the averments in the plaint and

not the defence taken. The grounds taken by the appellant – that the issues

raised had been decided by the decree of the Trial Court in OS No. 103/2007

and affirmed on appeal by the High Court – were the defence of the appellant.

Thus, these cannot be taken into account while rejecting a plaint under Order

7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Moreover, the issue as to whether the suit is barred by

res judicata cannot be decided in an Order 7 Rule 11 application but has to be

decided in the suit.

11 The appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court assailing the 1

July 2019 order of the Trial Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal upholding

the reasoning of the Trial Court on all the three grounds raised in the Order 7 Rule

11 application. On the ground of res judicata, the High Court placed reliance on the

decision of this Court in Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen4

, and

observed that the learned Trial Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the

application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on the ground of res judicata could not be

decided merely by looking into the averments in the plaint. In the view of the High

Court, a plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 only if it was not

maintainable on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint. In the present

application, such a determination would require the production of pleadings, the

issues framed and the judgment in the previous suit, to compare it with the present

 4 (2018) 5 SCC 644.

9

suit. This exercise, the High Court held, could not be undertaken merely by looking

into the plaint averments as held in Soumitra Kumar Sen (supra). Pursuant to the

dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court, the appellant has approached

this Court challenging the order of the High Court.

12 The rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is the bone

of the contention in this appeal. O.S No. 138 of 2008, instituted by the first

respondent, is a suit for declaration, partition, possession, and for a consequential

relief of injunction. Besides the first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the said suit,

KSFC (the second respondent) is the first defendant. The third respondent is the

second defendant, the appellant is the fourth defendant. The third defendant to the

suit is Dr Arvind Vithal Kamat, the brother of the first respondent. The following

reliefs have been sought in the suit :

“a] Declaring that the Sale-Deed dated: 08-08-2006 executed by

Defendant No. 1 in favor of the Defendant No. 2 with respect to the

suit property is null and void to the extent of half share of the

Plaintiff and the same is not binding on the plaintiff.

b] Awarding half share in the suit property to the plaintiff and

putting him in actual possession of his half share by effecting

physical partition in the suit property.

c] Restraining the defendants from causing inference in the

Plaintiffs actual possession of the suit property that may be given

to him by issue of perpetual injunction.

d] Entire costs of the suit may be awarded to the Plaintiff.”

13 The essential averments in the plaint are that the property in question was

owned by the mother of the first respondent-plaintiff and the third defendant. It has

been averred that their father had predeceased their mother, and that after the death 

10

of their mother on 26 May 1996, the property was inherited by the first respondent

and his brother in equal shares. The third defendant is stated to have taken a loan

from KSFC for setting up a CT scan centre and to have mortgaged the suit property

as security for that purpose. According to the first respondent, his brother had no

right to create a mortgage in respect of the suit property which was held in joint

ownership by both the first respondent and his brother. It has been alleged that

KSFC sold the property in executing its charge on the property and entered into a

registered sale deed on 8 August 2006 in favour of the second defendant (third

respondent herein). According to the first respondent, he had neither consented to

the mortgage nor signed any document. The first respondent pleaded that he may

suffer a decree for possession in O.S. 103 of 2007 instituted by the auction

purchaser and was accordingly seeking to assert his claim and interest as a lawful

owner in respect of half share in the suit property by filing O.S No. 138 of 2008.

14 The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the

issue concerning title of the suit property stands adjudicated in favour of the

predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in the earlier suit and the decree for

possession was upheld by the High Court. Hence, another suit agitating the same

issues and challenging the same sale deed is not maintainable and is barred by the

principles of res judicata. Moreover, it has been submitted that the first respondent

was arrayed as the second defendant to the earlier suit and had raised a specific

defence in regard to the validity of the sale conducted by the KSFC in favour of the

third respondent. The submission is that the original sale deed executed by KSFC is 

11

of 8 August 2006. The decree in the first suit was of 26 February 2009 and though

twelve years have passed since the date of the decree, the appellant as a

successor-in-interest of the auction purchaser is not being allowed to enjoy the suit

property.

15 Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC reads as follows:

“11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the

following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on

being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to

be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is

returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on

being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper

within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to

be barred by any law;

[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]

[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:]

[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the

valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be

extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied

that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional

nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite

stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the

Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave

injustice to the plaintiff.]”

 (emphasis supplied)

16 Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected “where

the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”. Hence, in

order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint

which will have to be construed. The Court while deciding such an application must 

12

have due regard only to the statements in the plaint. Whether the suit is barred by

any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to

decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in

the case. Before proceeding to refer to precedents on the interpretation of Order 7

Rule 11(d) CPC, we find it imperative to refer to Section 11 of CPC which defines

res judicata:

“11. Res judicata.—No Court shall try any suit or issue in

which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been

directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the

same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of

them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court

competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which

such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been

heard and finally decided by such Court.”

17 Section 11 of the CPC enunciates the rule of res judicata : a court shall not

try any suit or issue in which the matter that is directly in issue has been directly or

indirectly heard and decided in a ‘former suit’. Therefore, for the purpose of

adjudicating on the issue of res judicata it is necessary that the same issue (that is

raised in the suit) has been adjudicated in the former suit. It is necessary that we

refer to the exercise taken up by this Court while adjudicating on res judicata, before

referring to res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11.

Justice R C Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for a two Judge

bench in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava5 discussed the plea of res judicata

and the particulars that would be required to prove the plea. The court held that it is

 5 (2004) 1 SCC 551.

13

necessary to refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the judgment of the

‘former suit’ while adjudicating on the plea of res judicata:

“11. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the

jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of

estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should

be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the

same cause.

13. Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be

substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings,

issues and judgment in the previous case. Maybe, in a given

case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea

of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in

requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which

may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed out in Syed

Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa [(1976) 4 SCC 780] the

basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to

determine the case of the parties as put forward in their

respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find

out as to what had been decided by the judgment which

operates as res judicata. It is risky to speculate about the

pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations

made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment. The

Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [AIR 1964 SC

1810 : (1964) 7 SCR 831] placing on a par the plea of res

judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the

previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on

record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the

cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary

for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of

action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be

determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of

deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings.

Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna

Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council [(1887-88) 15 IA 186

: ILR 16 Cal 173] pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot

be determined without ascertaining what were the matters in

issue in the previous suit and what was heard and decided.

Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into the

pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit.”

 (emphasis supplied)

14

18 At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the decisions that particularly

deal with the question whether res judicata can be the basis or ground for rejection

of the plaint. In Kamala & others v. KT Eshwara Sa6

, the Trial Judge had allowed

an application for rejection of the plaint in a suit for partition and this was affirmed by

the High Court. Justice S B Sinha speaking for the two judge bench examined the

ambit of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC and observed:

“21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must

be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a

conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the

plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should

not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for

rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground

specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that

effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking

clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made

in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or

subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can

be invoked at different stages and under different provisions

of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule

2 is another.

22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the

Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues

on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties

would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All

issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the

said provision.”

(emphasis supplied)

The Court further held:

“23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar

another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code. The question

involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require

not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and

the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a

 6 (2008) 12 SCC 661.

15

preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said question

cannot be determined at that stage.

24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on

their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say

that although the same discloses a cause of action, the same is

barred by a law.

25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by various High

Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad

principle which can be culled out therefrom is that the court at

that stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a

disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction

of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning

thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for

rejection of plaint should be entertained.”

(emphasis supplied)

The above view has been consistently followed in a line of decisions of this Court. In

Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v.

Ponniamman Educational Trust7

, Justice P Sathasivam (as the learned Chief

Justice then was), speaking for a two judge Bench, observed that

“10. […] It is clear from the above that where the plaint does

not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is

undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the

court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time

fixed by the court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the

required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the

provisions of Rule 9, the court has no other option except to

reject the same. A reading of the above provision also

makes it clear that power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code

can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before

registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the

defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial.

11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem

Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557] , in which,

 7 (2012) 8 SCC 706.

16

while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held

as under: (SCC p. 560, para 9)

“9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the

relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an

application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The

trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC at any stage of the suit—before registering the plaint or

after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before

the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an

application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7

CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas

taken by the defendant in the written statement would be

wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file

the written statement without deciding the application under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity

touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.”

It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court

has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can

be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is

also clear that the averments in the written statement are

immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the

averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to

be looked into in deciding such an application are the

averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the

defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and

the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments.

These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett &

Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] and Mayar

(H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [(2006) 3 SCC

100].”

Similarly, in Soumitra Kumar Sen (supra), an application was moved under Order 7

Rule 11 of the CPC claiming rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was

barred by res judicata. The Trial Judge dismissed the application and the judgement

of the Trial Court was affirmed in revision by the High Court. Justice AK Sikri, while

affirming the judgment of the High Court held:

17

“9. In the first instance, it can be seen that insofar as relief of

permanent and mandatory injunction is concerned that is

based on a different cause of action. At the same time that

kind of relief can be considered by the trial court only if the

plaintiff is able to establish his locus standi to bring such a

suit. If the averments made by the appellant in their written

statement are correct, such a suit may not be maintainable

inasmuch as, as per the appellant it has already been

decided in the previous two suits that Respondent 1-plaintiff

retired from the partnership firm much earlier, after taking his

share and it is the appellant (or appellant and Respondent 2)

who are entitled to manage the affairs of M/s Sen Industries.

However, at this stage, as rightly pointed out by the

High Court, the defense in the written statement cannot

be gone into. One has to only look into the plaint for the

purpose of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

It is possible that in a cleverly drafted plaint, the plaintiff has

not given the details about Suit No. 268 of 2008 which has

been decided against him. He has totally omitted to mention

about Suit No. 103 of 1995, the judgment wherein has

attained finality. In that sense, the plaintiff-Respondent 1

may be guilty of suppression and concealment, if the

averments made by the appellant are ultimately found to be

correct. However, as per the established principles of law,

such a defense projected in the written statement cannot be

looked into while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC.”

Referring to Kamala (supra), the Court further observed that

“12. … The appellant has mentioned about the earlier two

cases which were filed by Respondent 1 and wherein he

failed. These are judicial records. The appellant can easily

demonstrate the correctness of his averments by filing

certified copies of the pleadings in the earlier two suits as

well as copies of the judgments passed by the courts in

those proceedings. In fact, copies of the orders passed in

judgement and decree dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Civil

Judge (Junior Division), copy of the judgment dated 31-3-

1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) upholding

the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as

well as copy of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2014

passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division in Suit No. 268 of

2008 are placed on record by the appellant. While deciding

the first suit, the trial court gave a categorical finding that as

per MoU signed between the parties, Respondent 1 had 

18

accepted a sum of Rs 2,00,000 and, therefore, the said suit

was barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and

acquiescence. In a case like this, though recourse to

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the appellant was not

appropriate, at the same time, the trial court may, after

framing the issues, take up the issues which pertain to

the maintainability of the suit and decide the same in the

first instance. In this manner the appellant, or for that

matter the parties, can be absolved of unnecessary

agony of prolonged proceedings, in case the appellant

is ultimately found to be correct in his submissions.”

(emphasis supplied)

While holding that “recourse to Order 7 Rule 11” by the appellant was not

appropriate, this Court observed that the Trial Court may, after framing the issues,

take up the issues which pertain to the maintainability of the suit and decided them

in the first instance. The Court held that this course of action would help the

appellant avoid lengthy proceedings.

19 In a more recent decision of this Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd.

v. Central Bank of India and Another8

, a three Judge bench of this Court,

speaking though Justice AM Khanwilkar, was dealing with the rejection of a plaint

under Order 7 Rule 11 by the Trial Court, on the ground that it was barred by

limitation. The Court referred to the earlier decisions including in Saleem Bhai v.

State of Maharashtra9

, Church of Christ Charitable Trust (supra), and

observed that

 8 2020 SCC OnLine SC 482. 9 (2003) 1 SCC 557.

19

“18. It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the

court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the

same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the

suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement

are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the

averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to

be looked into in deciding such an application are the

averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the

defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and

the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averment. These

principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co.

Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar (H.K.)

Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100.”

20 On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an

application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized as follows:

(i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the

averments in the plaint will have to be referred to;

(ii) The defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while

deciding the merits of the application;

(iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i)

the ‘previous suit’ is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were

directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was

between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating

under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally

decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and

(iv) Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the

pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be 

20

beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the

plaint will have to be perused.

21 In the present case, a meaningful reading of the plaint makes it abundantly

clear that when the first respondent instituted the subsequent suit, he had been

impleaded as the second defendant to the earlier suit (OS No. 103/2007) that was

instituted on 13 March 2007. The first respondent instituted the subsequent suit, OS

138/2008 though he had knowledge of the earlier suit. The plaint in the subsequent

suit which was instituted by the first respondent indicates that the he was aware of

the mortgage executed in favour of KSFC, that KSFC had executed its charge by

selling the property for the recovery of its dues and that the property had been sold

on 8 August 2006 in favour of the predecessor of the appellant. As a matter of fact,

the plaint contains an averment that there was every possibility that the first

respondent may suffer a decree for possession in OS 103/2007 which “has forced”

the first respondent to institute the suit for challenging the legality of the sale deed.

Given the fact that an argument was raised in the previous suit regarding no

challenge having been made to the auction and the subsequent sale deed executed

by the KFSC, it is possible that the first respondent then decided to exercise his

rights and filed the subsequent suit. Be that as it may, on a reading of the plaint, it is

evident that the first respondent has not made an attempt to conceal the fact that a

suit regarding the property was pending before the civil court at the time. It is also

relevant to note that at the time of institution of the suit (OS No. 138/2008) by the

first respondent, no decree had been passed by the civil court in OS No. 103/2007. 

21

Thus, the issues raised in OS No. 103/2007, at the time, had not been adjudicated

upon. Therefore, the plaint, on the face of it, does not disclose any fact that may

lead us to the conclusion that it deserves to be rejected on the ground that it is

barred by principles of res judicata. The High Court and the Trial Court were correct

in their approach in holding, that to decide on the arguments raised by the appellant,

the court would have to go beyond the averments in the plaint, and peruse the

pleadings, and judgment and decree in OS No. 103/2007. An application under

Order 7 Rule 11 must be decided within the four corners of the plaint. The Trial court

and High Court were correct in rejecting the application under order 7 Rule 11(d).

22 For the above reasons, we hold that the plaint was not liable to be rejected

under Order 7 Rule 11(d) and affirm the findings of the Trial Court and the High

Court. We clarify however, that we have expressed no opinion on whether the

subsequent suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. We grant liberty to the

appellant, who claims as an assignee of the bona fide purchaser of the suit property

in an auction conducted by KSFC, to raise an issue of the maintainability of the suit

before the Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum in OS No. 138/2008. The Additional Civil

Judge, Belgaum shall consider whether a preliminary issue should be framed

under Order XIV, and if so, decide it within a period of 3 months of raising the

preliminary issue. In any event, the suit shall be finally adjudicated upon within the

outer limit of 31 March 2022. 

22

23 For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned

judgment and order of the High Court dated 18 January 2021. The application under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC shall stand dismissed. There shall be no orders as to

costs.

24 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

…………………..…………………………J

 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

………..………….…………………………J

 [MR Shah]

New Delhi;

August 09, 2021