Madras High Court
V.Ramathal vs B.Bagyalakshmi ..1St on 27 June, 2025
CRP.No.1025 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 18.06.2025 Order pronounced on : 27.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.1025 of 2025
& C.M.P.No.5941 of 2025
V.Ramathal ..Petitioner/2nd Defendant
Vs.
1.B.Bagyalakshmi ..1st Respondent/Plaintiff
2.Kanchana ..2nd Respondent/1st Defendant
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order dated 11.12.2024 made in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in
O.S.No.194 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan
For Respondents : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran for R1
No appearance for R2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred to set aside the order
dated 11.12.2024 made in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.194 of 2019 on the file of
the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
2.This revision is at the instance of the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.194 of
2019 before the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The 2nd defendant took
out an application in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in the said suit, seeking rejection of the
plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by principles of constructive res
judicata and estoppel. The said application was initially taken up for enquiry, at
which point of time, the revision petitioner took out an application to produce
certain documents. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court stating
that an application for rejection of the plaint would have to be decided only
based on the plaint averments and the documents filed by the plaintiff along
with the suit. Challenging the said order, the petitioner moved this Court in
CRP.(PD).No.4427 of 2023 and this Court, by order dated 08.12.2023, set aside
the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.11 of 2023 and directed the Trial
Court to receive the documents which were sought to be produced by the
revision petitioner. Thereafter, the Trial Court has conducted enquiry and
dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Aggrieved by the
said order, the revision petitioner, namely the 2nd defendant in the suit is before
this Court.
3.I have heard Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
There is no appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
4.Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the Trial Court, despite the order passed in the earlier revision
petition in CRP.(PD).No.4427 of 2023, has not even considered the documents
that were permitted to be filed by the revision petitioner. That apart, the learned
counsel would state that the 1st respondent/plaintiff has clearly pleaded about the
earlier proceedings which went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is only
the documents that were not filed along with the plaint and only on that ground,
this Court had permitted the said documents to be looked into while deciding
the application for rejecting the plaint.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a
reading of the plaint clearly establishes that it was a clear case of re-agitating
the same issues which had attained finality and therefore, it is clear abuse of
process of the Court. He would also contend that the issue of constructive res
judicata and estoppel are borne out of the documents substantiating the plaint
allegations and he would therefore pray for the plaint to be rejected, by setting
aside the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for rejection
of plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
6.Per contra, Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent/plaintiff would submit that the suit is one for partition and separate
possession of the plaintiff's/1st respondent's right in the suit property. The 1st
respondent has also sought for a relief of declaration that the Sale Deed dated
01.06.2025 is not binding on the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction to
restrain the 2nd defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit properties. He
would further state that the property which is the subject matter of the earlier
suit and the property which is subject matter of the present suit are completely
different and not overlapping. He would further state that the specific case of
the 1st respondent/plaintiff was that despite the 2nd respondent having no share in
the suit property and having admitted even in the pleadings in the earlier
proceedings, has colluded with the revision petitioner and proceeded to execute
a Sale Deed as if she had right and interest in the suit property and in the
process, the right, title and interest of the 1st respondent/plaintiff has been
seriously prejudiced and impeded and only under such circumstances, the
present suit has been filed. He would therefore state that there is no question of
constructive res judicata or estoppel, more so, when the earlier suit was for
specific performance alone. He would also place reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal
Kamat and Others, reported in (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 99, in support of
his contention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side. I have also gone through the order impugned in the
revision and the judgment on which reliance has been placed on by the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent.
8.The earlier suit proceedings which went up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court were pertaining to an agreement of sale that was entered into in the year
1986. The suit for specific performance was instituted by the revision petitioner
and the suit came to be decreed and the matter attained finality before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, according to the revision petitioner, the
execution proceedings were also laid and Sale Deed was executed and
possession was also handed over to the decree holder. The learned counsel for
the petitioner would take me through the plaint in the present suit in O.S.No.194
of 2019 and state that the very same issues are now been re-agitated and
therefore, it is a clear case of abuse of process of law.
9.Per contra, Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the 1st respondent
has contended that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC cannot be
entertained on the ground that the suit is barred by principles of res judicata as
the Court will have to examine the pleadings, issues framed and judgment in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
previous suit in order to come to a conclusion that the second suit is barred by
principles of constructive res judicata and estoppel.
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala's case, has
also in similar circumstances, held that while deciding an application under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, the Trial Court can only go by the averments in
the plaint and even the defense raised by the defendant cannot be considered
while deciding the application to reject the plaint. It has been further held that to
determine whether the suit is barred by res judicata, it would involve the
questions that had to be adjudicated and finally decided by the Court only after
trial and such pleas cannot be the foundation for entertaining an application
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
11.It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the suit filed by the
1st respondent is barred by law. The very same issue has been already decided
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and clearly held that the question of res judicata
are not available to be taken by the defendant to seek rejection of the plaint
invoking provisions under Oder VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Even otherwise, from
the the facts of the present case, it is seen that the subject matter of the earlier
suit which went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only a suit for specific
performance for an agreement of sale where questions of title have not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
decided finally. However in the present suit, the 1st respondent has sought for
relief of partition as well as declaration of Sale Deed to be not binding on him,
besides the relief of permanent injunction.
12.Though the subject matter of the property in the agreement of sale is a
larger extent in which the present 1st respondent/plaintiff claims a right of
partition to a portion of the said property, it cannot be said that the issue has
already been finally decided. The issues that arises in the present suit are
certainly in variance to what was decided in the earlier suit for specific
performance.
13.I have also gone through the order passed by the Trial Court
dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC taken out by the
revision petitioner. The Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the
issues of constructive res judicata and estoppel cannot be decided in an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and can be decided only after the
parties lead evidence, oral and documentary. As regards the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that despite directions of this Court to consider
the documents, the Trial Court has not even whispered about the additional
documents that were produced by the revision petitioner, I have gone through
the order of the Trial Court in this regard. I find that no doubt, it is rightly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Trial Court has not even
referred to the order of this Court, permitting the additional documents to be
considered while disposing of the application for rejection of the plaint.
However, I do not find that such omission on the part of the Trial Court has
been fatal or has resulted in a perverse or unsustainable order.
14.On the questions of law, the Trial Court has appreciated the
contentions of the parties and clearly come to the conclusion that since the
plaint is sought to be rejected on the ground of constructive res judicata and
estoppel, has proceeded to hold that such contentions cannot be gone into in an
application for rejection of the plaint. Therefore, though the documents that
have been relied on by the revision petitioner were not looked into or discussed,
I find that the Trial Court has come to the right conclusion and no prejudice is
caused to the revision petitioner on account of non-consideration of the
documents which are only orders and judgments of the Courts in the earlier
proceedings. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in
the findings arrived at by the Trial Court.
15.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The I Additional
District Judge, Coimbatore is directed to dispose of O.S.No.194 of 2019, within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
27.06.2025
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
To
The I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
P.B.BALAJI.J,
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
Pre-delivery order made in
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:16 pm )
