Madras High Court
K.Raju vs O.Thanikodi on 14 February, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P(MD)No.59 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.59 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.295 of 2023
K.Raju ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Defendant
Vs.
O.Thanikodi ... Respondent/ Respondent/
Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated
29.11.2022 made in I.A.No.812 of 2021 in O.S.No.21 of 2021 on the file
of District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas
For Respondent : Mr.G.Vishnuram
ORDER
The defendant in O.S.No.21 of 2021 on the file of District Munsif
Court, Uthamapalayam is the revision petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the above said suit
for the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory
injunction. The defendant has filed a written statement contending that
he had already filed O.S.No.239 of 2018 for the relief of permanent
injunction for the same schedule of property. In the said suit, the vendor
of the plaintiff was arrayed as the 1st defendant. The suit was decreed in
favour of the present revision petitioner on 21.03.2019. Thereafter, the 1st
defendant, namely Natarajan in O.S.No.239 of 2018 has sold the property
to the present plaintiff. Therefore, according to the defendant, the present
suit is barred under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. To the said
effect, the defendant has filed I.A.No.812 of 2021 to reject the plaint on
the ground that the suit is barred under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of
Civil Procedure.
3. The trial Court has dismissed the said application on the ground
that the plea of res-judicata cannot be considered for rejecting a plaint
under Order VII Rule 11. Challenging the same, the present revision
petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner, for the same property, the defendant in the present suit has
obtained a decree as against the vendor of the plaintiff. In such
circumstances, after being unsuccessful in O.S.No.239 of 2018, the 1st
defendant in the suit has sold the property to the present plaintiff.
Therefore, the suit has to be rejected on the ground of res-judicata.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein
contended that the suit schedule property in both the suits are completely
different and therefore, Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be
invoked.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the material records.
7. The only ground on which the Order VII Rule 11 application
has been filed is that, the present suit is barred under Section 11 of Code
of Civil Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in 2023 (6) MLJ 392 (Keshav Sood Vs.Kirti Pradeep Sood &
Others) has categorically held that the issue of res-judicata cannot be
decided on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In
view of the above said decision, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the
said application. However, the defendant would be entitled to raise the
same issue at the time of trial. Considering the fact that the suit is of the
year 2021, the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam is directed to
dispose of the suit on or before 30.11.2025.
8. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
14.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Munsif Court,
Uthamapalayam.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
