Res Judicata Is Not A Ground To Reject A Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:5 mins read

Res Judicata Is Not A Ground To Reject A Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

Case: Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs Hemant Vithal Kamat

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

Case No: CA 4665 of 2021

Court Observation: “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.”

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 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.

(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.

Download Judgement

[doc id=7805]

Previous Judgments

Penetrative Sexual Act Between The Thighs Of Victim Held Together Is Rape As Defined U/S 375 IPC: Kerala High Court

Different Retirement Age For AYUSH & Allopathic Doctors Not Justified: Supreme Court

Cognizance Of Section 138 NI Act Offence By Magistrate Will Not Automatically Result In Decree In Civil Suit For Cheque Dishonour: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court: State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally Serving Doctors

Should Disobedience Of Injunction Be ‘Wilful’ To Invoke Order 39 Rule 2A CPC? Supreme Court Doubts Its Earlier Judgment

Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted For Perjury U/s 193 CrPC For Mere Inconsistency In His Statements: Supreme Court

Entity Which Misuses Status Under Section 12AA Income Tax Act Not Entitled To Retain It: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Trust Registration