[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pramila vs Mukesh Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:3266) on 19 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:3266]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16892/2023

Pramila W/o Nitin Kumar Srivastava, Aged About 42 Years, 1St
Floor, House No. 46, C-Block, Sri Ganganagar
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Mukesh Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Parnami, House No. 205, Street
No. 5, Indra Colony, Sri Ganganagar
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Dixit Panwar for
                                Mr. Rakesh Matoria.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Dishant Verma.



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

19/01/2026

1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

02.08.2023 passed by Learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar,

rejecting the application of the petitioner-tenant under Order VII

Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Explaining the background facts, counsel for the petitioner-

tenant stated that one Late Smt. Darshna Devi filed eviction

petition bearing Rent Case No. 24/2021, against the petitioner-

tenant on the ground of bonafide necessity as well as requirement

of repair and maintenance in the premises in question. She was

expired on 05.07.2021 and respondent Mukesh Kumar, being her

son, has been impleaded as her legal representative and

continued the said eviction petition.

(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3266] (2 of 7) [CW-16892/2023]

Later on, the respondent himself has preferred a fresh rent

petition, Rent Petition No. 01/2023 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. Smt.

Pramila), inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent.

3. The petitioner-tenant preferred an application under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC in the subsequent petition and prayed for

dismissal of the said petition on the ground that subsequent rent

petition is barred by principles of res subjudice and res judicata.

4. The application so preferred by the petitioner-tenant was

contested by the respondent-landlord. Learned Rent Tribunal, Sri

Ganganagar while passing order dated 02.08.2023 dismissed the

application on the ground that the subsequent petition has been

filed on different ground and for the purpose of application under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint/petition are

required to be seen, which in itself does not seem to be barred by

any law.

5. Challenging the order dated 02.08.2023, learned counsel for

the petitioner, while referring to Section 10 and Section 11 of CPC,

stated that learned Rent Tribunal has committed an error in

rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the

subsequent rent petition has been filed by the respondent-landlord

for the purpose of same relief and with regard to the same

premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated

that the subsequent petition between the same parties is

apparently barred by the principles of res subjudice/res judicata

and, therefore, the continuation of both the proceedings at the

same time is not permissible in the eye of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the judgments

cited on behalf of the petitioner-tenant have not been considered

(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3266] (3 of 7) [CW-16892/2023]

by learned Rent Tribunal in their true context. Hence, the

impugned order dated 02.08.2023 is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, counsel for respondent-landlord, Mr. Dishant

Verma vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of

the petitioner and argued that as a matter of fact, the subsequent

rent petition has been filed on entirely different grounds and in

view of the subsequent cause of action i.e. default in payment of

rent committed by the petitioner-tenant. Learned counsel for the

respondent stated that the order impugned in the present writ

petition is absolutely justified and in consonance with the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pandurangan Vs. T.

Jayarama Chettiar & Anr." reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1425.

8. Learned counsel for respondent also stated that the

objection raised on behalf of petitioner regarding principle of res

subjudice/res judicata under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has rightly

been rejected by learned Rent Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord also apprised

this Court that the earlier Rent Petition No.24/2021, originally filed

by late Smt. Darshana Devi, has already been withdrawn and the

respondent-landlord is only pursuing the subsequent rent petition,

thus, the principles of res subjudice/res judicata are not at all

applicable at this stage.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

11. On perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that the

earlier rent petition has been filed by Late Smt. Darshna Devi on

the ground of bonafide necessity and the respondent-Mukesh

(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3266] (4 of 7) [CW-16892/2023]

Kumar has been impleaded in the capacity of her legal

representative. On the other hand, a perusal of the subsequent

rent petition (Annexure-2) shows that the same has been filed on

entirely different grounds i.e. default in payment of rent and cause

of action for the same has arisen subsequent to the filing of earlier

rent petition by Late Smt. Darshna Devi. In this view of the

matter, the subsequent rent petition cannot be said to have been

filed on the same grounds or involving same issues between the

parties.

12. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that at the stage of

consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the

contents of the plaint are required to be seen to determine as to

whether the same is barred by any law. A perusal of memo of rent

petition no. 1/2023 does not show that the same is barred by any

law. Petitioner-tenant has tried to make out a case of res

subjudice/res judicata in view of the objection raised by way of

subsequent pleadings, which cannot be seen at the stage of Order

VII Rule 11 CPC. The reliance in this regard can very well be

placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Pandurangan (supra), the relevant portion of which is quoted

below:-

"8. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., this Court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the Court held:

"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:

(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3266] (5 of 7) [CW-16892/2023]

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.

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)

9. 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, 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, this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows:

(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3266] (6 of 7) [CW-16892/2023]

"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.

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."

10........

11........

12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96 dated 29-7-1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not have been decided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief.

13. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court in Pandurangan v. R. Jayarama Chettiar dated 20-3-2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo to its original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. "

(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3266] (7 of 7) [CW-16892/2023]

13. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that the earlier

petition preferred by Late Smt. Darshna Devi has already been

withdrawn and in this view of the matter, the issue raised in the

application regarding principle of res subjudice does not survive.

The impugned order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned rent

tribunal is absolutely justified as well as in consonance with the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish any

error, much less an error apparent on the face of record, or

jurisdictional error being committed by the learned Tribunal below,

which would warrant the interference of this Court under its

supervisory jurisdiction.

15. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated

02.08.2023 is upheld and the writ petition being devoid of any

merits is dismissed.

16. Since the proceedings in the Rent Case No. 01/2023 (Mukesh

Kumar Vs. Smt. Pramila) remain stayed in the present writ

petition for more than 2 years, this Court deems it appropriate to

direct the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the same as

expeditiously as possible.