2025:JHHC:38067 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 25 of 2025 1. Dilip Singh aged about 31 years son of – Late Satya Narayan Singh; 2. Arvind Singh aged about 50 years; 3. Sanjay Singh aged about 42 years; 4. Vinayak Singh aged about 46 years; Petitioners No.2 to 4 are sons of – Late Pradhan Singh; 5. Nawal Singh aged about 55 years; 6. Dinu Singh aged about 30 years; Petitioners No.5, 6 are sons of – Late Kuleshwar Singh; 7. Dhaneshwar Singh aged about 55 years son of – Late Ramdeo Singh; 8. Santoshi Kuer aged about 52 years Wife of – Late Satya Narayan Singh; All resident of village – Jalim, P.O. – Jalim, P.S.- Latehar, District – Latehar. … Petitioners/Plaintiffs Versus 1. Birbal Singh son of – Late Bigan Singh @ Surat Singh, resident of village – Jalim, P.O.- Jalim, P.S.- Latehar, District – Latehar … Opp. Party/Defendant 2. Gauri Devi W/o – Ganauri Singh, resident of village Banua, P.O. – Lesliganj, District – Palamau. 3. Basanti Devi W/o Sarya Singh; 4. Rajanti Devi W/o Gopal Singh; Respondent No.3 and 4 are resident of village – Goa, P.O. – Jalim, P.S. – Latehar, District – Latehar. 5. Fulwa Kuwar W/o Late Suryadeo Singh; 6. Aasha Kuwar W/o Late Suryadeo Singh; Respondent No.5, 6 are resident of village – Jalim Khurd, P.O.- Jalim Khurd, P.S.- Latehar, District – Latehar. 7. Nagarmani Devi W/o Prakash Singh, D/o Late Suryadeo Singh, resident of village – Mongar, P.O. – Mongar, P.S.- Latehar, District – Latehar. … Opp. Parties/Proforma Defendants Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioners : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Mahato, Adv. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Order No.06/Dated- 18.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2025:JHHC:38067 Page | 2 2. In the instant civil revision, the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.03 of 2016 by learned District Judge-I, Latehar whereby and whereunder learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Civil Appeal No.03 of 2016 by affirming the order dated 05.04.2016 passed in Original Suit No.56 of 2015 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Latehar whereby and whereunder only on the basis of Sirestedar's report that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata, the same has been dismissed exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. by rejecting the plaint due to applicability of bar of res judicata. The principle of res judicata as propounded under Section 11 of the C.P.C. has its characteristic features for its application which cannot be decided merely by reading the averments of plaint itself rather the same can be determined upon the trial of the suit as per pleadings of the parties even taking the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue to be decided under Order XIV of the C.P.C. Therefore, impugned order has no legal sanctity and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/defendants, Mr. Suraj Singh, although defended the impugned orders but failed to satisfy the applicability of provision of Section 11 C.P.C. putting a bar to the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. 2025:JHHC:38067 Page | 3 5. I have considered the main issue pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. First of all relevant provisions are extracted hereunder :- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as follows: “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 from 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”. (emphasis supplied) Section 11 C.P.C. which defines res judicata: “11. Res judicata.- No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, 2025:JHHC:38067 Page | 4 in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanmandas Totala (supra) has held as under:- “18. Section 11 CPC enunciates the rule of res judicata: a court shall not try any suit or issue in which the matter that is directly in issue has been directly or indirectly heard and decided in a “former suit”. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudicating on the issue of res judicata it is necessary that the same issue (that is raised in the suit) has been adjudicated in the former suit. It is necessary that we refer to the exercise taken up by this Court while adjudicating on res judicata, before referring to res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. R.C. Lahoti, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for a two-Judge Bench in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551 discussed the plea of res judicata and the particulars that would be required to prove the plea. The Court held that it is necessary to refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the judgment of the “former suit” while adjudicating on the plea of res judicata: (SCC pp. 556-57, paras 11 & 13) “11. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same casue. …………….. 13. Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. May be, in a given case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed 2025:JHHC:38067 Page | 5 out in Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, (1976) 4 SCC 780 the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. It is risky to speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810 placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council, 1888 SCC Online PC 17 pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot be determined without ascertaining what were the matters is issue in the previous suit and what was heard and decided. Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit.” (emphasis supplied) 19. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the decisions that particularly deal with the question whether res judicata can be the basis or ground for rejection of the plaint. In Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661 the trial Judge had allowed an application for rejection of the plaint in a suit for partition and this was affirmed by the High Court. S.B. Sinha, J. speaking for the two- Judge Bench examined the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and observed: (SCC 668-69, paras 21-22) 2025:JHHC:38067 Page | 6 “21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub- clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another. 22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision.” (emphasis supplied) 6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court and the relevant provisions as discussed above, it is crystal clear that an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC can be invoked to reject the 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 defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application. So far principle of res judicata is concerned, it is necessary that the previous suit is decided, the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the 2025:JHHC:38067 Page | 7 same title, and the issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction who tried the subsequent suit. Therefore, 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 VII Rule 11(d) CPC where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused. 7. In the instant case, it is obvious from perusal of impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the legal principles enunciated under Section 11 CPC incorporating the principles of res judicata has not been considered in its proper perspective rather at the very threshold, the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Therefore, both the Courts below have committed serious error of law and failed to exercise their jurisdiction properly. 8. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this revision application is allowed and the impugned judgments/orders are hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. 9. The Original Suit No.56 of 2015 filed by the petitioners is restored to its original number for hearing in accordance with law. It is made clear that the issue of res judicata is not being decided here in this revision which may be considered by the learned Trial Court at the proper stage of the proceeding. 10. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 18th December, 2025 Sachin/ Uploaded on: 20/12/2025