Recently, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Madras High Court which had affirmed the rejection of a civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground of res judicata. The Court observed that such an objection involves disputed questions of fact and law and must be examined during trial and not at the threshold stage. In doing so, the Court emphasized that "res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint".
The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from a person who had earlier acquired it through a registered sale deed. While in peaceful possession, the plaintiff learned that an advocate-commissioner was appointed to inspect the property based on a decree obtained in a prior suit filed by Defendant. That earlier suit had proceeded ex parte and resulted in a preliminary decree for partition. Claiming that this decree was obtained fraudulently and collusively, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the prior decree was not binding on him and also prayed for a permanent injunction.
The plaintiff asserted that he was kept in the dark about the earlier litigation, had no notice of its pendency, and that the sale in his favour took place before the suit was even filed. It was also alleged that the court which passed the earlier decree lacked territorial jurisdiction, thereby rendering the decree voi
The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by res judicata, since the earlier decree had attained finality. The contention was that the plaintiff claimed through a party to the earlier suit and hence was bound by the previous adjudication.
The Supreme Court extensively referred to its earlier decisions including Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and reiterated that, “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... the defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application.”
The Court further observed, “The issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser, need to be examined in detail.”
It held that such complex factual questions, including the binding nature of a previous decree and the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, could not be summarily dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Citing its ruling in Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, the Court reminded that, “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.” The Apex Court disapproved the approach of the Trial Court, which had rejected the plaintiff’s claims for not having raised objections to the ex parte decree earlier, and further held that the High Court erred in affirming such a summary dismissal.
The Top Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and restored the plaintiff’s suit to its original number before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the suit given its pendency since 2009.
Before concluding, the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and that all grounds raised by the defendant, including res judicata, remain open for final adjudication during trial. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Title: Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.
Case No: SLP (C) No. 18230 OF 2025
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Picture Source :
