1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 134 of 2024 1 - Toukir Ahamad S/o Late Salauddin Khan, Aged About 38 Years Caste-Musalmaan, R/o Village-Risdi, Tehsil And District- Korba (C.G.) Haal Mukam- Village- Tanakhar, Tehsil - Podi Uparoda, District- Korba (C.G.) -----(Defendant No.1). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sumitra Bai Yadav W/o Late Kartik Ram, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village-Tanakhar, Tehsil- Podi Uparoda, District- Korba (C.G.) ---- (Plaintiff). 2 - Mordhwajpuri (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 15-07-2025). 2.1 - Uma D/o Late Mordhwajpuri Aged About 35 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 2.2 - Lakhan Goswami S/o Late Mordhwajpuri Aged About 32 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 2.3 - Parvati Goswami D/o Late Mordhwajpuri Aged About 24 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 2.4 - Gouri Goswami D/o Late Mordhwajpuri Aged About 22 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 2.5 - Ravi Goswami S/o Late Mordhwajpuri Aged About 20 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 2.6 - Jagdamba D/o Late Mordhwajpuri Aged About 18 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 3 - Anujpuri S/o Late Suryabhanpuri, Aged About 52 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) -----(Defendant No.3). 4 - Santoshpuri S/o Late Suryabhanpuri, Aged About 40 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) -----(Defendant No.2). 5 - Ekti Bai D/o Late Suryabhanpuri, Aged About 42 Years R/o Maheshpuri, Tehsil- Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) -----(Defendant No.5). 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Collector, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) -----(Defendant No.6) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 6 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2024, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for substituting the legal representative of respondent No. 2. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 02/2024 is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to amend the cause title during the course of the day. 4. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and while setting aside the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Pratham Vyavhar Nyayadhish varg-1 ke dwitiya atirikt Nyayadhish, Katghora, Distt.- Korba in civil suit no. 29 A/2024, ANNEXURE A/2, and dismiss the above mentioned civil suit, in the interest of justice.” 5. Brief facts of the case, is that, the applicant is the defendant No. 1, while respondent No. 1 is the plaintif and respondents No. 2 to 6 are defendants No. 2 to 6 before the trial court. The parties shall be referred to by their original status in the civil suit. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent 4 injunction, claiming to be the owners of the suit land, whereas defendants No. 2 to 5 have sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 08.03.2022. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 has filed an application under Section 250 of the CGLRC before the Tehsildar, who, by order dated 22.06.2023, granted interim relief. Defendant No. 1 has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, contending that, in view of paragraphs 5 and 10 of the plaint, the application under Section 250 of the CGLRC filed before the Tehsildar, Podi Uproda, Korba C.G. was allowed on 04.06.2024, and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable under Section 257(x) of the CG Land Revenue Code and Section 11 of the CPC. However, the learned trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the application of defendant No. 1 on the ground that the suit is for declaration of title, and thus the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction, not the revenue courts. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is per se illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He contends that the present suit is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata as the issues in question have already been adjudicated and finally decided between the same parties by a competent authority. He further submits that 5 the order passed by the Tahsildar, which has attained finality, is binding upon both parties, and once such a dispute or lis has been conclusively determined, the same cannot be re-opened or agitated afresh by filing a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. He further submits that the trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has completely ignored the binding effect of the earlier adjudication, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that this Hon’ble Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order and allow this revision in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. He submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties and has passed a reasoned and well-merited order, which does not call for any interference. He further submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court are based upon the principles of law and facts, and no perversity or illegality has been demonstrated by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is merely attempting to re-agitate issues that have already been conclusively decided and which are otherwise barred by principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. He further submits that the trial Court has considered all relevant 6 aspects, including the binding nature of the earlier orders passed by competent authorities, and has reached the correct conclusion after a thorough evaluation of the rival contentions. He further submits that the applicant has failed to make out any case of jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or any material error of law, and as such, the revision deserves to be dismissed in limine. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and decree, being just, proper and in accordance with law, may kindly be affirmed and the revision petition filed by the applicant be dismissed with exemplary costs. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The legal position governing the consideration of applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is well settled. Such applications are to be adjudicated solely on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint. The defence raised by the defendants cannot be looked into for the purpose of deciding such an application. The issues raised by the applicant/defendant No. 1 are required to be decided in a complete trial. 10. A plea of res judicata cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The issue of res judicata requires a detailed examination of the pleadings, issues and the decision in the previous suit which goes beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (D) of CPC 7 where only the plaint averments are to be considered. Res judicata is a complex legal principle that requires more than just examining plaint itself, it necessitates looking into the records of the previous suit to determine, if the same issues were previously litigated and decided between the same parties. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamant & Ors., reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99 has observed as under:- “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: 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 (1) 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, 8 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.” 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Sood vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood & Ors., reported in MANU/SC/1188/2023 has observed as under:- “4. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we find that the plea of res judicata could not have been gone into on an application made by the Appellant Under Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from pleadings in the earlier suit, several other documents which were relied upon by the Appellant in his application Under Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure were required to be gone into for deciding the issue of res judicata. 5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, the law is well settled. The 9 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 Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure. 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.” 13. The objections urged by the applicant, that the suit is barred by res judicata within the meaning of Section 11 CPC, and that the order passed by the Tahsildar is binding between the parties so as to foreclose the present lis were specifically raised, examined, and dealt with in detail by the trial Court. At this preliminary stage, the materials on record do not demonstrate that the issues presently in controversy stand finally adjudicated between the same parties in an earlier proceeding so as to attract the bar of 10 Section 11. Likewise, the administrative/revenue order of the Tahsildar cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive determination of civil title sufficient to justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the fact that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application file under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court committed no error in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order thus reflects a proper and judicious exercise of jurisdiction and discloses neither illegality nor material irregularity, much less perversity, warranting interference in the present revision. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat