HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL REVISION No. - 42 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Utkarsh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. By means of the instant revision, the revisionist assails the order impugned dated 21.08.2025, passed in Regular Suit No.783 of 2025, whereby the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.20, Lucknow rejected an application of th revisionist purported to move under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the plaintiff (private-respondent herein) did not approach the trial Court with clean hands. 4. It is urged that earlier the revisionist had filed a suit which came to be decreed in his favour in respect of the property in question (which is now the subject matter of the suit bearing No.783 of 2025). The said judgment and decree passed in favour of the revisionist was assailed by the private- respondent by filing a regular civil appeal which also came to be dismissed, however, the matter was not carried forward, but the private- respondent instead, instituted the instant suit. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the revisionist had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit itself was barred by the principles of res judicata. 6. It has also been urged that the trial Court has committed an error in Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ranjana Agnihotri, Utkarsh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Sharma Mishra .....Revisionist(s) Sarvan .....Opposite Party(s) relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others, (2021) 9 SCC 99 to hold that a plaint cannot be rejected on the grounds of res judicata. It is urged that the same was not applicable and thus the order impugned was bad in the eyes of law. 7. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. 8. It is now too well settled to be disputed that as far as an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned, while disposing of the same, it is only the plaint averments and the documents filed by the plaintiff in support thereof are to be examined. The plaint has to be read as a whole and sentences cannot be culled out in isolation. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, if the averments of the plaint are seen, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.7, it would reveal that there is no reference to an earlier suit or the appeal. This could be a part of defence of the present revisionist, who is the defendant in the suit, but it cannot be taken to be an averment in the plaint, which can be considered while disposing of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Whether, the earlier suit was in between the same parties, relating to the same property and involving the same question as involved in the instant suit, is a subject matter which can only be considered during trial. 10. Since the written statement has yet not been filed and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist can constitute their defence, however, it cannot be looked into or considered while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Thus, leaving all the pleas to be raised by the revisionist before the trial Court who needless to say would consider and take note of the same in accordance with law, this Court does not find that there is any error in the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.20, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.783 of 2025 to entertain the instant revision which is accordingly dismissed. October 7, 2025 Rakesh/- CLRE No. 42 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench