Velayutham vs Sellamuthu
2021 Latest Caselaw 18174 Mad

                                                                        C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 06.09.2021

                                                        CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                               C.R.P.(PD)No.4226 of 2017

                     Velayutham                                                 .. Petitioner

                                                             Vs.

                     Sellamuthu                                                 .. Respondent

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
                     Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
                     21.04.2017 made in I.A.No.302 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 1997 on the
                     file of the District Munsif Judge, Perambalur.

                                           For Petitioners    : Mr.R.Venkatesulu
                                                                for M/s.Usharamman

                                           For Respondent     : Mr.S.Mohan

                                                       ORDER

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and

decreetal order dated 21.04.2017 made in I.A.No.302 of 2017 in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

O.S.No.187 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

2.The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.187 of 1997 on the file of

the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. The respondent filed the said suit

for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering with

his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner

filed written statement on 21.10.1999 and additional written statement on

29.11.2016 and is contesting the suit. The petitioner, on 09.01.2017, filed

I.A.No.302 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the

plaint in O.S.No.187 of 1997. According to the petitioner, the suit

property belongs to him and is enjoying the suit property. He handed over

the suit property to one Ramasamy, Duraisamy and Ponnusamy. With the

permission of the petitioner, the said three persons were cultivating in the

suit property. The said Ramasamy died issue less, Duraisamy died

leaving his son Kulandhaivel; and Ponnusamy died leaving his sons

Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy. After their death, the legal heirs viz.,

Kulandhaivel, Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy were enjoying the suit

property and cultivating with the permission of the petitioner. They do

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

not have any title with regard to the suit property. Ramasamy did not

have any right to sell 1 acre and 17 cents of suit property to Periyasamy

in the year 1970. Similarly, Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy, sons of

Ponnusamy also did not have any right to sell 1 acre and 17 cents of suit

property on 11.07.1984 to Periyasamy. The sale deeds dated 23.06.1970

and 11.07.1984 are executed without having any legal right and are void

documents. The said documents are not binding on the petitioner.

2(i) The petitioner filed O.S.No.140 of 1997 against Kulandhaivel,

Muthusamy, Krishnamoorthy, Periyasamy, Ramayee and Thangavel, for

declaration and possession of the suit property. The said suit was decreed

by the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2004. No appeal was filed

against the said judgment and decree. Contrary to the decree dated

16.09.2004, the sale deed executed by Periyasamy in favour of the

respondent is not valid. The said decree is binding on the respondent

also. The sale deeds dated 11.07.1984 and 22.04.1997 are not legally

valid documents. The present suit filed by the respondent against the

petitioner is not correct and not valid. The present suit is barred by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

Section 11 of C.P.C. and plaint has to be rejected. The cause of action for

both the suits are one and the same and prayed for rejection of plaint in

O.S.No.187 of 1997, filed by the respondent.

3.The respondent filed counter affidavit and stated that the

respondent purchased the suit property by deed of sale dated 22.04.1997.

The petitioner filed O.S.No.140 of 1997 on 30.04.1997, only against the

vendors of the respondent and respondent was not added as party

defendant in the said suit. The vendors of the respondent have no interest

in the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. The alleged decree in

O.S.No.140 of 1997 will not bind the respondent. The respondent,

neither in the written statement nor in the additional written statement,

raised this issue and it amounts to waiving of imaginary right. The

petitioner has come out with the present I.A. at the appellate stage, when

the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. Even after coming to

know of the purchase by the respondent, the petitioner did not implead

the respondent in the suit in O.S.No.140 of 1997. With collusion of the

vendors of the respondent, the petitioner obtained decree in the said suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

The said suit is not binding on the respondent. The petitioner has not

filed any document. The documents filed are not connected to the suit

property. None of the ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. were

attracted to the petition. The petition is not maintainable and prayed for

dismissal of the I.A.No.302 of 2017. The learned Judge, by the order

dated 21.04.2017, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter

affidavit and plaint, provisions of C.P.C. viz., Section 11 and Order VII

Rule 11, dismissed the I.A.

4.Against the said order of dismissal dated 21.04.2017 made in

I.A.No.302 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 1997, the present Civil Revision

Petition has been filed.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the learned Judge failed to consider the decree dated 16.09.2004 made in

O.S.No.140 of 1997, in favour of the petitioner, for declaration and

possession against the respondent's wife and his vendors. In the said suit,

the respondent filed E.A., challenging the decree in favour of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

petitioner. The suit in O.S.No.187 of 1997 filed by the respondent is for

bare injunction. The suit in O.S.No.140 of 1997 is for declaration and

possession. E.P. filed by the petitioner is for delivery of possession. The

suit filed by the respondent is abuse of process of Court and irresponsible

litigation. The learned Judge ought to have invoked Order VII Rule 11 of

C.P.C., to reject the plaint for suppression of material facts and re-

agitating the matter. The Court has got inherent powers to reject the

vexatious litigations to save the time of the Court. The Hon'ble Apex

Court held that re-litigation is an abuse of process of Court. Frivolous or

vexatious proceedings amount to abuse of process of Court, especially

where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court has power to

stop the said proceedings summarily in the I.A. filed under Order VII

Rule 11 of C.P.C. and prevent the Court's time being wasted. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground regarding the wife of

the respondent made as a party to the suit in O.S.No.140 of 1997 was

mistakenly raised in the Civil Revision Petition.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

his contentions, relied on following judgments:

(i) 1996 (2) MLJ 259 [Thirumangai Naidu Vs. R.Srinivasan and

others]:

“17.................This decree having been affirmed by the first appellate court as also by this Court on account of the rejection of the second appeal in limine and having been considered and held in the present proceeding also that those earlier proceeding constituted res judicata, it was not proper for the lower appellate court to have restricted the applicability of the principle of res judicata only to a part or portion of the decree, namely, the declaration of title alone and not to the portion of the decree relating to recovery of possession. The previous judgment and decree having been for both reliefs, the relief of permanent injunction claimed in the present proceedings so as to stultify the decree for recovery of possession earlier granted by competent courts should be held to have been equally barred by the principle of res judicata engrafted in Sec.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To this extent the lower appellate court in my view committed a serious blunder and grave error of law and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

liable to be set aside on this ground alone.”

(ii) 2021 (2) CTC 829 [V.Gowrishankar and another Vs.

S.Balakumar and another]:

“15.Point for consideration:-

Whether in a petition filed for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the Court can go into the question of re-litigation as to the prime aspect and point of limitation, simpliciter. The question as to whether re-litigation amounts to abuse of process of court is no longer res integra.

(i) The judgment reported in (1998) 3 S.C.C. 573 - [K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and Others], paragraph No.44 is usefully extracted hereunder. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to C.R.P. (PD).No.937 of 2019 re-litigate the same issue which h as already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of court.

(ii) In yet another decision that was reported in 2003 (4) CTC 347 - (K.K.Swaminathan Vs. Srinivasagam), paragraph No. 27 is usefully extracted hereunder:-

"27. One of the most abuse of process of the Court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of process of the Court and contrary to justice to re-litigate the same issue, which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. If the same issue is sought to be re- agitated by frivolous and vexatious suits, it

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

is not as if the Court is powerless to stop the proceedings when it is brought to its notice. O.S.No.2473 of 1996 is sheer abuse of process of the Court re-agitating the same issue, in my view, should not be allowed to continue.

(iii) Yet another decision reported in 2009 (5) CTC 710 : 2009 (5) LW 79 - [Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society, rep. by its Managing Director, 350 Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 8 Vs S.R.Ejaz, rep. By his Power Agent Muralidhar T.Balani], paragraph No.34, is usefully extracted hereunder:-

"Therefore, the second suit is barred not only on the ground that the issue raised in the said suit was directly in issue in the former suit between the parties or their predecessor-in-interest but also on the ground of a deeming fiction. The explanation IV to Section 11 of CPC was inserted with a specific purpose, to put an end to the litigation once for all. In the absence of such a provision, the parties would file suits after suits with new grounds. There should be finality to litigation. The principles of constructive res judicata would be applicable in such cases. In case parties are permitted to initiate re-litigation, it would have the effect of unsettling matters which were settled earlier. "

(iv) In the judgment reported in Lakshmi and others vs. Prasanna Mani and others, 2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 363, in C.R.P.No.4311 of 2010, paragraph No.25 reads as follows:

"25.The above decisions will clearly establish that no party can be allowed to relitigate the matter."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

16.What is 'abuse of the process of the Court'? Of course, for the term 'abuse of the process of the Court' the Code of Civil Procedure has not given any definition. A party to a litigation is said to be guilty of abuse of process of the Court, in any of the following cases:-

(1) Gaining an unfair advantage by the use of a rule of procedure.

(2) Contempt of the authority of the Court by a party or stranger.

(3) Fraud or collusion in Court proceedings as between parties.

(4) Retention of a benefit wrongly received.

(5) Resorting to and encouraging multiplicity of proceedings.

(6) Circumventing of the law by indirect means.

(7) Presence of witness during examination of previous witness.

(8) Institution vexatious, obstructive or dilatory actions.

(9) Introduction of Scandalous or objectionable matter in proceedings.

(10) Executing a decree manifestly at variance with its purpose and intent.

(11) Institution of a suit by a puppet plaintiff.

(12) Institution of a suit in the name of the firm by one partner against the majority opinion of other partners etc. (See

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

The Code of Civil Procedure - A.I.R. Commentary to Section 151, C.P.C.) The above are only some of the instances, where a party may be said to be guilty of committing abuse of the process of Court.

(i) In the decision reported in 1988 (2) KLT 732 -

[Sreedharan Vs. Seethala], the Kerala High Court has an occasion to consider what is meant by abuse of process of Court and it was held as follows:

(a).The term "abuse of the process of the court" has not been defined.

(b).An abuse of the process of court can be committed by the court or by a party. It is therefore clear that where a court employed a procedure in doing something which it never intended to do, but resulted in miscarriage of justice, there is what is called an abuse of the process of the court.

(c).What then is an abuse of the process of the court committed by a party to the proceedings? Instituting vexatious, obstructive or dilatory action in court of law is one instance; where a party should be held to be guilty of an abuse of the multiplicity of proceedings for one's own aggrendisement is yet another instance where a party could be said to have committed an abuse of the process of the court."

(ii) The decision reported in 1998 (I) CTC 66 - [Ranipet Municipality Rep. By Its Comer. and Special Officer, Ranipet Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan], this Court has held has follows:

(a) If he did not ask for grant of that right, he should not be allowed to file a separate suit as and when an auction notice was issued. Such a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

conduct on the part of the respondent is really an abuse of the process of Court.

(b) Such a conduct on the part of the respondent amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

(iii)The Division Bench of Panjab and Haryana, in the decision reported in I.L.R Punjab and Haryana 1988(2), Volume 15, has held that:

"the general principles contained in Section 11, Order II, Rule 2, Order IX Rule 9 and Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the Code which are based on justice, equity and good conscience do govern those proceedings. It is held that a second petition for the ejectment of the tenant on a ground on which an earlier petition was got dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition would be barred and not maintainable."

Wherein, the Division Bench has taken note of the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [1977 SC 789], which reads as hereunder:

"As has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and was reiterated in Lal Chand (dead) by LRs. And others v. Radha Kishnan:

"The principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. The principle is also founded on equity, justice and good conscience which require that a party which has once succeeded on an issue should not be permitted to be harassed by an multiplicity of proceedings involving determination of the same issue."

(iv) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1994 (5) SCC 355 - [Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. C.L.Batra], the suit was withdrawn without obtaining any leave for filing a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

separate suit. While considering the same, in Paragraph of the judgment (at page 356 of the report), the Hon'ble Judge has said as follows:

"Secondly, the assess had filed a writ petition, praying for similar relief. When interim order was not granted on that writ petition, he withdrew the writ petition and filed this suit. This was an abuse of process of law. No liberty was obtained from the Court to file a suit on the same cause of action, when the writ petition was withdrawn." (Italics supplied)"

All the above decisions clearly established that no party can be allowed to re-litigate the matter and in such case, the Court shall reject the suit plaint under Order VII Rule XI of CPC and the point of rejection can very well be gone into in the petition for rejection of plaint, on the ground of abuse of process of Court.”

7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submitted that the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII

Rule 11 of C.P.C. is without merits and is not maintainable. The

respondent is not re-litigating the issue and contention of the petitioner

that suit is hit by Section 11 of C.P.C., cannot be decided in an

application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The petitioner has not

made out any case for rejection of plaint. The learned Judge, considering

all the materials and provisions of C.P.C., rightly dismissed I.A. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the wife of the

respondent was not a party to the suit. Only to get interim order, the

petitioner has raised the said ground and prayed for dismissal of the Civil

Revision Petition.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in support of

his contentions, relied on the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online

565 [Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and

others]:

“19. In a more recent decision of this Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India and Another, 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 “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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

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 beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as

the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

10.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner, who

is a defendant in the present suit in O.S.No.187 of 1997, filed I.A.No.302

of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint. According

to the petitioner, he is owner of the suit property. Having inherited the

same, he permitted Ramasamy, Duraisamy and Ponnusamy to cultivate in

the land. After their death, their legal heirs viz., Kulandhaivel,

Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy, with permission of the petitioner,

cultivated in the land and are in possession of the suit property. The said

three persons or their legal heirs did not have any right or title in the suit

property. Ramasamy, by the deed of sale dated 23.06.1970, sold 1 acre

and 17 cents of the suit property to one Periyasamy. Similarly after the

death of Ponnusamy, his sons viz., Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy sold

another 1 acre and 17 cents by sale deed dated 11.07.1984 to said

Periyasamy. Similarly, the said Periyasamy, without any right over the

extent of land purchased by void sale deed, sold the same to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

respondent, by sale deed dated 22.04.1997. The petitioner filed suit

against Kulandhaivel, Muthusamy, Krishnamoorthy, Periyasamy and

Thangavel, including one Ramayee, for declaration and possession. The

said suit was decreed on 16.09.2004. It is the contention of the petitioner

that in view of the decree dated 16.09.2004 in O.S.No.140 of 1997, the

sale deeds referred to above have become void. The cause of action in

both the suits are one and the same and hence, the suit filed by the

respondent in O.S.No.187 of 1997 is barred by principles of res judicata,

as per Section 11 of C.P.C. On these grounds, the petitioner has sought

for rejection of plaint filed by the respondent. It is well settled that the

Court has power as per Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint at

the threshold itself summarily, without conducting any trial. But

defendant must satisfy any one of the ingredients mentioned in Order VII

Rule 11 of C.P.C. The said provision 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;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

(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 :

[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 form 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.] ”

11.According to petitioner, his claim is that the suit filed by the

respondent is barred by principles of res judicata and hence, the plaint

has to be rejected. A reading of the Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. shows

that there is no provision for rejecting the plaint on the ground that suit is

hit by res judicata. Further, the question of res judicata is mixed question

of law and fact and the same cannot be decided in the application filed

under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The same can be decided only after

conclusion of trial, considering the evidence that is let in at the time of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

trial. Further, the petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.140 of 1997 for

declaration and possession, whereas the suit filed by the respondent is for

permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering with his

possession and enjoyment, as he has purchased the suit property by the

sale deed dated 22.04.1997 and in possession and enjoyment of suit

property. The relief sought for in both the suits are also different. The

petitioner filed O.S.No.140 of 1997 on 30.04.1997. The petitioner has

not made the respondent as party in the said suit. Further, when the

petitioner received summons and entered appearance in the present suit

and filed written statement on 21.10.1999, he knew that the respondent is

claiming to be the owner of suit property. Having knowledge of purchase

of respondent by the sale deed dated 22.04.1997 from Periyasamy, the

petitioner did not implead the respondent as party defendant in the suit in

O.S.No.140 of 1997, filed by him. Further, when the respondent filed the

present suit, the suit filed by the petitioner was pending and it was not

decided. The respondent filed suit for injunction, restraining the

petitioner from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the suit property. Section 11 of C.P.C. reads as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

“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.

Explanation I.—The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.

Explanation III.—The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.

Explanation V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.

Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.

Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.

Explanation VIII.—An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such

issue has been subsequently raised.”

12.A reading of said Section makes it clear that issue in both the

suits or persons claiming through party in the earlier suit must be one and

the same and earlier suit must be finally decided. None of the ingredients

mentioned in Section 11 of C.P.C. is present so as to hold that the suit

filed by the respondent is barred by principles of res judicata. It is

repeatedly held that while considering the application for rejection of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., only the averments in the plaint

and documents filed along with the plaint must be considered to decide

or to reject the plaint in the I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

The contention of the defendants in the written statement or in the

affidavit filed in support of application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C

and documents relied on by the defendants in the application cannot be

considered in the application for rejection of plaint. Only when the

ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C is substantially complied with

by the defendant, the plaint can be rejected, as the Court is passing order

in a summary manner, without there being any evidence. The petitioner,

in the grounds of revision, raised various grounds, mostly with regard to

his title of the suit property. The petitioner raised a ground that the

respondent's wife was a party to the suit in O.S.No.140 of 1997 filed by

him. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner stated that the said ground has been raised mistakenly. The

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the

respondent is re-litigating the issue, suppressed the material fact and has

not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, the plaint must

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

be rejected. There is no material to show that the respondent is re-

litigating the issue and what are all the materials he has suppressed. The

issue whether plaint can be rejected on the ground of res judicata was

considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.20 of the

judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, reported in

2021 SCC Online 565 (cited supra). In sub para (iv) of the said

paragraph no.20, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically has held that

"plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and

decision in the 'previous suit' and such a plea is beyond the scope of

Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., where only the statements in the plaint

will have to be perused”. In view of these categorical finding of the

Hon'ble Apex Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the plaint has to be rejected, in the application filed under

Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., on the ground of res judicata is without

merits and is liable to be rejected. The judgments relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner do not relate to the issue in the present

proceedings and do not advance the case of the petitioner. The learned

Judge has considered all the materials in proper perspective, exercised

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

his jurisdiction properly and dismissed the I.A. There is no error in the

order of the learned Judge, warranting interference by this Court.

13.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted

that pending Civil Revision Petition, the suit is transferred to the District

Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vepanthattai, Perambalur District

and hence, prayed for speedy disposal of the suit. Considering the fact

that the suit is of the year 1997, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial

Magistrate, Vepanthattai, is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.187

of 1997 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than six

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

For the above reason, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

06.09.2021 Index :: Yes gsa

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

To

The District Munsif, Perambalur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD).No.4226 of 2017

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

gsa

C.R.P.(PD)No.4226 of 2017

06.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/