1 2025:CGHC:25326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 803 of 2017 1 - Deleted (Smt. Gayatri Bai (As Per Honble Court Order Dt. 01-09- 2022) Through Legal Heirs (As Per Honble Court Order Dt. 01-09- 2022), Chhattisgarh 1.1 - (A) Manharan Lal Tiwari S/o Moham Lal Tiwari, Husband Of Late Gayatri Bai Aged About 70 Years R/o Block Road, Ward No. 01, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Vikrant Tiwari S/o Manharan Lal Tiwari S/o Late Gayatri Bai Aged About 36 Years R/o Block Road, Ward No. 01, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C) Shitla Awashthi D/o Manharan Lal Tiwari D/o Gayatri Bai Aged About 42 Years R/o Block Road, Ward No. 01, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D) Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Kejaram Sharma Husband Of The Late Santosh Bai Aged About 50 Years Who Was Daughter Of Late Gayatri Bai, R/o Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chattisgarh 1.5 - (D) Aman Sharma S/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 20 Years R/o Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chattisgarh 1.6 - (E) Harsh Sharma S/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 18 Years R/o Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Basant Lal, Aged About 49 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Barela, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For Respondent : None appears though served -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.06.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.09.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.21-A/2017 whereby an application moved by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent filed a Civil Suit No.42-A/2010 on 23.09.2010 seeking therein declaration of title and possession over Survey No.91/110 admeasuring 0.015 acre out of 0.006 hectare situated at Village Takhatpur, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, interalia on the ground that the original defendant No.1 namely Gayatri Bai had left open 120 sq.ft. of land as a path but the same has been encroached. 3. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014 decreed the suit and directed defendant No.1 namely Gayatri Bai to handover the vacant possession of 22 x 15 sq.ft. of land to the plaintiff within a period of three months. 4. Late Gayatri Bai filed a Writ Petition (227) No.335 of 2016 against the rejection of an application moved under Section 151 of CPC in the execution case. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.07.2016 with a direction to the Tehsildar to carry out the demarcation before the execution of the decree. 5. Respondent No.1 filed a fresh civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to Survey No.91/110 admeasuring 600 sq.ft. situated at Village and Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 inter-alia on the ground that the original defendant namely, Gayatri Bai has encroached over 3 x 60 sq.ft. of land. The Civil Suit was filed on 30.01.2017. Respondent No.1 in the subsequent civil suit sought possession of 3 x 60 sq.ft. of land. 6. The petitioners herein moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC inter-alia on the ground that earlier Civil Suit No.42-A/2010 was filed by the plaintiff claiming a similar relief between the same parties and it was adjudicated and decided vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014. It is also stated in the application that on the same set of facts and grounds, the subsequent civil suit is not maintainable. 7. The plaintiff filed a reply to the said application and denied its averments. The plaintiff stated that in the earlier suit, the right of way was not claimed and it was with regard to declaration of title and possession only. 8. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 rejected the application inter-alia on the ground that the reliefs sought in the previous suit and the instant suit are entirely different, though the suit property is the same. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing this petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the previous suit No. 42-A/2010 was filed making allegations that defendant No.1 namely Gayatri Bai has encroached over 40 x 3 sq.ft. of path which was reserved in the sale deed executed by her. He would contend that the issues were framed and the suit was decreed. He would further submit that to ascertain the exact position of the suit land, -4- the demarcation was conducted pursuant to the order passed in WP(227) No.335 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016. He would also contend that there was no occasion for respondent No.1 to file a fresh civil suit pertaining to the same suit land claiming therein a similar relief. He would further contend that the application was moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for the rejection of the plaint but the learned Trial Court rejected the application holding that the reliefs sought in the previous suit and the present suit are entirely different. He would state that there was no cause of action, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. He would pray to allow the present petition. 10. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent despite the service of SPC. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length and also perused the documents. 12. Admittedly, Civil Suit No.42-A/2010 was filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of title and vacant possession of the suit property after demolition of drainage. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014. 13. A perusal of the subsequent Suit No.21-A/2017 would reveal that it has been filed claiming therein right of way over 3 x 60 sq.ft of land and injunction. Though the suit property in both suits is the same but the reliefs sought in both suits are different. 14. The petitioners moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the learned Trial Court inter-alia on the ground that the 5 previous suit claiming similar reliefs has already been adjudicated and decided therefore, the subsequent suit is not maintainable. 15. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as under:- “Order 7 Rule 11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;] Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 16. A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that the Court may dismiss a suit at the outset without a full trial if the plaint suffers from certain defects. These defects include a lack of cause of action, under-valuation of the suit, insufficient stamp-duty, the suit being barred by law or failure to file the plaint in duplicate or provide necessary copies. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that there -6- was no cause of action in the subsequent suit filed by respondent No.1. The petitioners have not annexed a copy of the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The contents of the order impugned would show that the application was filed only on the ground that the previous suit claiming a similar relief has already been adjudicated and decided by the competent Civil Court, therefore, the subsequent suit is not maintainable. Thus, from a perusal of the order impugned, it can safely be held that the issue of cause of action was not raised before the learned Trial Court in the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 18. The petitioners ought to have raised the plea of res-judicata as contemplated under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 19. The principle of res judicata prevents a court from trying a suit or issue that has already been decided in the previous suit between the same parties or their privies on the same matter and by the competent Court. The subject matter of both suits must be one and the same. The petitioners moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC without elaborating any of the conditions mentioned in the provision itself. Therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application. 20. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference and thus, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha