Himanshu Yadav vs Raj Kumar Jain on 13 February, 2026

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13251




                                                               1                                   CR-799-2024
                                IN   THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                                   ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                    CIVIL REVISION No. 799 of 2024
                                                  HIMANSHU YADAV AND OTHERS
                                                             Versus
                                                   RAJ KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Shailesh Kumar Jain -
                           Advocate for the petitioner.
                                 Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
                                 Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey- Advocate for the respondent No.2
                                 Ms. Sulekha Sharma - P.L. for the respondents / State.

                                                                 ORDER

The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial court has rejected the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 11 CPC. The application under Section 11 CPC was filed alleging that the suit is barred by the res judicata and the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also filed on

the same assertion that the suit is barred by law of res judicata in as much as there has been previous suit between the same parties and therefore the subsequent suit is not maintainable.

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the relief sought in the fresh suit is in respect of declaration of one exchange deed dated 04.04.2007 to be void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff in respect of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13251

2 CR-799-2024 Survey number 279/4. It is vehemently argued that the earlier suit which was between the same parties had the issue No. 5 that whether on the basis of forged and fraudulent documents the defendants have managed to get their names entered in Survey number 279/4 and 280/2. It is argued that in response to the said issue the parties had led their evidence as to the said exchange deed and therefore the matters in issue in the previous suit and in the subsequent suit between the same parties are similar. It is argued that permitting the subsequent suit to continue would only lead to agony of the defendants who would have to defend the same suit again and again. Plaintiffs argue that even if some part of the relief they omitted to pray in the earlier suit then that relief would be barred in terms of mandatory provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because if they could pray certain reliefs which they did not pray, then it would amount to relinquishment of the

aforesaid relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on following judgments in support of his vehement contentions :-

Ishwardas Vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 551,

K.V. George Vs. The Secretary to Govt., Water and Power Dept., Trivandrum and Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 53.

State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain reported in AIR 1977 SC 1680

Ramadhar Shrivas Vs. Bhagwandas reported in AIRONLINE 2005 SC 14

Babulal Vs. Kanhaiyalal reported in AIR 1975 RAJASTHAN 136,

Srimati Raj Lakshmi Dasi and Ors. Vs. Banamali Sen and Ors.

3 . Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has vehemently contended that there is no similarity of issues between both the suits and there is a lot of distinction between the scope of the earlier suit and of the subsequent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13251

3 CR-799-2024 suit. The earlier suit was not filed for avoiding the exchange deed on the ground that it is not binding on the plaintiff. Now the issue would arise in the present suit that whether the exchange deed is binding on the plaintiff or not. Therefore, on this ground and on other various arguments, it is contended that the facts and issue in both the suits are different. It is further argued that whether the suit is barred by res judicata or not cannot be the subject matter of an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and it has been held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. Therefore, the counsel for respondents has fervently and vehemently made a plea to reject the present revision.

4. Heard.

5. The trial Court has rejected the application for rejection of plaint on the ground of it being barred by the principle of res judicata on the ground that whether the matters in issue in both the suits are similar and whether the subsequent suit is barred by the principle of res judicata, cannot be adjudicated without recording of evidence and this objection can only be decided after recording of evidence and therefore, the trial Court has rejected the application for rejection of plaint as barred by res judicata on the ground that it involves issues that require recording of evidence.

6. Before the Executing Court the contention of the plaintiff was that the earlier suit was for restraining the defendants from interfering in the rights to use the well and way whereas the present suit is specifically filed for declaring the exchange deed as null and void and declaring all consequential actions in pursuance to the said exchange deed as void. The earlier suit was simplicitor for permanent

injunction and the present suit is for challenging the validity of the exchange deed

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13251

4 CR-799-2024 and therefore the cause of action are different and the matters arising for adjudication are also different in both the suits.

7. Upon going through the judgement of the earlier suit and memorandum of plaint in the present suit it appears to this Court that whether the issues arising for consideration in the present suit are covered in the earlier suit or not, is something that can be adjudicated only considering the material of the defendant, and not without that. From a bare reading of the assertions of the plaint which is the golden test to adjudicate the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it cannot be inferred that the suit is barred by res judicata . For ascertaining whether the suit is barred by res judicata, the documents relied by the defendants would have to be read and taken into consideration which cannot be done at the stage of considering application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Pandurangan Vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar and Anr. reported in (2025) 10 SCC 279 has held as under:-

"6. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat [Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99 : (2021) 4 SCC (Civ) 489] , this Court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC, the Court held : (SCC p. 112, para 25)

"25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows:

25.1. 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.

25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13251

5 CR-799-2024 25.3. 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.

25.4. 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." (emphasis supplied)

7. Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether Defendant 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser or not needs to be examined in detail. This Court has held that such circumstances require an in-depth examination of the previous decree, and its impact on the second suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint. As held by this Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava [V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551] identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood [Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459] this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows : (Keshav Sood case [Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459] , SCC OnLine SC paras 5-6)

"5. As far as scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13251

6 CR-799-2024

6. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the trial court and the judgment of the appellate courts. Therefore, we make it clear that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on merits."

9. While holding so the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the earlier judgement in case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99 wherein it has been that where it is required to study and consider the documents relied by the defendants and in depth examination of the previous decree and its impact on the second suit, it cannot be adjudicated at the stage of rejection of plaint.

10. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere in the well- reasoned order passed by the trial Court. With liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue in appropriate manner and at appropriate stage, the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE

nks