1 2025:CGHC:51778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 272 of 2025 1 - Mekhlendra Pratap Singh S/o Late Shri Chandrabhan Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o A.O.- 89, Phase-4, Asma City, Sakri Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)- 495001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Balbhadra Singh S/o Late Shri Krishnabhan Singh, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Nunera, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil Hardibazar, P.S. Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 495001 2 - Tilakraj Singh S/o Late Shri Krishnabhan Singh, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village- Nunera, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil Hardibazar, P.S. Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 495001 3 - Bhupendra Singh, S/o Late Shri Krishnabhan Singh, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village- Nunera, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil Hardibazar, P.S. Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 495001 4 - Tankar Singh, S/o Late Shri Krishnabhan Singh, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Nunera, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil Hardibazar, P.S. Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 495001 5 - Thaleshwar Singh S/o Late Shri Krishnabhan Singh, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Nunera, P.O. Nunera, Tehsil Hardibazar, P.S. Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 495001 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. The applicant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pali, Distt. - Korba (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the present matter arises from a protracted family dispute over ancestral property, reflecting a deep- rooted conflict between members of the same lineage. The applicant and the private respondents are members of the same family and share a common ancestry, with the central dispute revolving around title and possession of ancestral properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint filed in the most recent suit. The private respondents have instituted Civil Suit No. 57-A/2022 before the trial Court, seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner with respect to the said ancestral properties. This suit is currently pending adjudication, and several hearings have already taken place. However, the present litigation cannot be seen in isolation but must be appreciated in light of the chequered history of prior litigations between the parties and their predecessors-in-title, involving the same properties and substantially similar issues. To trace the genesis of the current dispute, it is imperative to revisit earlier legal proceedings involving the same family branches. A civil suit was instituted as early as 20.01.1981 by one Bhuri Baiya, who is now deceased but was at that time asserting her status as the widow of late Rudrapal Singh. In Civil Suit No. 49-A/2002, Bhuri Baiya not only sought damages amounting to Rs. 5,500/- but also sought a declaration of her status as lawful widow of Rudrapal Singh. This suit was contested on merits by the private respondents (defendants therein) and culminated in a judgment and decree dated 05.02.2003, whereby Bhuri Baiya was partly successful, the Court having granted her a declaration recognizing her status as widow of Rudrapal Singh. 3 Parallel to this proceeding, the private respondents themselves had instituted a separate civil suit on 06.12.1980, Civil Suit No. 50-A/2002, against the same Bhuri Baiya, seeking declaration of title over the disputed property, cancellation of a revenue order passed in Case No. 14-A/27/79-80, and the consequential deletion of name of Bhuri Baiya from the revenue records. However, their suit was dismissed on merits, as they failed to substantiate their claims to title and possession, as evident from the judgment dated 05.02.2003. Not satisfied with the outcome of both suits, the private respondents preferred two separate civil appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 8-A/2006 and 9-A/2006, both of which were registered on 21.03.2003. These appeals were analogously heard and adjudicated. After comprehensive proceedings involving the framing of issues and detailed arguments, both appeals were dismissed on 03.02.2007, with the appellate Court finding no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants (the private respondents herein). Persisting in their effort, the private respondents approached this Court by filing a second appeal, registered as S.A. No. 354/2007. However, during the pendency of this second appeal, Bhuri Baiya passed away. In light of her demise, the appeal was disposed of based on an application moved by the appellants themselves. Following the death of Bhuri Baiya, the present applicant, being her legal heir, has stepped into her shoes. Her claim over the disputed property stems from a registered Will dated 24.10.2016, executed by the late Bhuri Baiya. By virtue of this testamentary instrument, the applicant has derived title over the suit property. This Will formed the basis for the name of applicant being substituted in the revenue records in place of Bhuri Baiya. The mutation order was passed on 24.07.2020 in 4 Revenue Case No. 31/A-6/2017-18. Despite this background, the private respondents once again chose to revive the dispute by filing the aforementioned Civil Suit No. 57-A/2022, without any fresh cause of action and in blatant disregard of the principle of res judicata. In response, the applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the present suit is barred by law. This application detailed the prior adjudications between the parties and emphasized that the subject matter in the current suit had already been finally determined in earlier litigations. However, the learned trial Court, in the submission of the applicant, has failed to appreciate the application in its correct legal and factual context. The trial Court neither engaged with the full import of the earlier judgments nor did it appreciate the binding effect of the principle of res judicata, which clearly bars re-litigation of issues that have been directly and substantially decided between the same parties or their privies. The pleadings and documents submitted by the plaintiffs themselves reveal that the suit properties and issues involved are not novel but are the same that were earlier litigated upon, and which attained finality through judgments rendered on merit. The failure of trial Court to recognize this not only undermines the principles of finality in litigation but also compels the applicant to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as the impugned order dismissing the application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, is legally untenable and calls for interference. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that the impugned order dated 12.06.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior 5 Division, Pali, District-Korba in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2022, is perverse, arbitrary, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court has failed to consider the well-settled principles governing the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, and has proceeded to dismiss the application filed by applicant without proper appreciation of the legal issues involved and the binding effect of earlier judgments between the same parties or their privies. It is submitted that the Court below has committed a jurisdictional error in failing to properly exercise the authority vested in it by law. The order passed suffers from a material irregularity inasmuch as the trial Court has simply brushed aside the objection based on res judicata by observing that the registered Will executed by late Bhuri Baiya in favour of the applicant has never been adjudicated. However, the Court has completely ignored the fact that the primary issue, title and ownership of the suit property, has already been directly and substantially adjudicated in earlier proceedings culminating in a judgment which has attained finality. The reliance on the Will was not the foundation for invoking res judicata; rather, it was an ancillary factor post-demise of Bhuri Baiya, reinforcing the standing of applicant. The refusal of learned Court to even examine the antecedents of the plaintiffs, their bona fides, and deliberate suppression of material facts, including earlier litigations and judgments, amounts to suppressio veri et suggestio falsi, rendering their conduct questionable and their suit unmaintainable. Furthermore, it is submitted that the plaint itself, upon a plain reading, discloses no cause of action which could have legally entitled the plaintiffs to the reliefs sought. The suit is a classic instance of re-litigation of a matter already settled between the parties, aimed solely at harassing the 6 applicant and prolonging an already concluded issue. The absence of any fresh cause of action and the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose complete facts in their pleadings is fatal. Therefore, as per settled law, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d), CPC, being barred by law and not disclosing a cause of action. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the suit is also hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. While seeking a declaration of title, the plaintiffs have conspicuously failed to pray for consequential relief, namely, possession of the property, even though it is admitted that the applicant is in possession of the disputed land. The law is well settled that where a plaintiff omits to seek further relief than a mere declaration, which he is in a position to seek, the Court shall not grant the declaration. The deliberate omission on the part of the plaintiffs, in this regard, renders the suit legally defective and untenable in law. It is most humbly submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court reflects a mechanical and superficial consideration of the issues and fails to apply settled legal principles governing rejection of plaints. The failure to take into account the prior adjudications, the finality of previous decisions between the same parties, and the deliberate suppression of facts by the plaintiffs has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. The present revision, therefore, squarely falls within the scope of interference under Section 115 of the CPC, as the trial Court has acted with material irregularity and refused to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it. In view of the foregoing submissions and the factual matrix of the case, the applicant prays that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 and allow the application 7 under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, thereby rejecting the plaint in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2022. 5. At the outset, it is submitted by learned State Counsel that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The present suit filed by the private respondents is not barred by the principle of res judicata as the registered Will executed by the late Bhuri Baiya in favor of the applicant has never been adjudicated, and the issues raised in the current suit are distinct and require fresh determination. The trial Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction by considering the pleadings and evidence before it, and there is no material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. Further, the plaintiffs have disclosed a cause of action and are entitled to seek relief as per law. The rejection of the plaint was neither warranted nor justified, and the revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents appended along with the revision. 7. The primary issue involved in this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether the learned trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application of defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, which sought dismissal of the suit on the grounds of res judicata and lis pendens. 8. At the outset, it is pertinent to recapitulate the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions. In the matter of Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr., reported in 8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1425 has held that a plea of 'res judicata' cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of a plaint. The Court held that res judicata is an issue to be decided in trial and cannot be summarily decided in an application to reject the plaint. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Sood vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459 has took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows : “5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. 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. 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 CPC. 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.” 10.In the matter of Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 9 held 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 (i) 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, 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.” 11. These rulings establish beyond doubt that the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is limited to examining the plaint alone, along with the documents filed by the plaintiff. The defence taken by the defendant and the materials submitted by them cannot be considered while deciding such applications. Further, the question of whether a suit is barred by res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact. Its determination requires 10 a detailed comparison of the earlier and subsequent suits, including the pleadings, the framed issues, the cause of action, the identity of the parties, and whether the earlier judgment was rendered by a competent Court. These aspects cannot be conclusively determined solely on the basis of the plaint in the subsequent suit and therefore fall outside the purview of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. 12.In the present case, the trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court’s core finding was that the issue of res judicata is not amenable to summary adjudication at the stage of considering an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court noted that the registered Will executed by the late Bhuri Baiya in favor of the applicant had never been subject matter of prior adjudication, making the present suit distinguishable from earlier suits. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether the suit is barred by res judicata entails a detailed comparison of pleadings, issues framed, evidence, and prior judgments, which cannot be done solely by examining the plaint. It observed that such matters require framing of issues, recording of oral and documentary evidence, and trial, which are beyond the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 13. The plaint discloses a fresh cause of action, primarily because of the registered Will executed by the late Bhuri Baiya in favor of the applicant, which was not adjudicated in prior suits. The private respondents’ suit hinges on fresh factual contentions, including claims that differ materially from those in earlier proceedings. Moreover, the Will and subsequent mutation in revenue records constitute relevant new facts altering the legal landscape. The allegations of fraud, title, 11 possession, and ownership involve complex factual disputes requiring comprehensive inquiry, including evidence. Rejecting the plaint at this stage would be premature and contrary to the principles of justice and fair trial. The trial Court rightly held that these issues require framing of issues, leading of evidence, and full trial for appropriate adjudication. The applicant’s submission regarding suppression of facts and absence of cause of action does not warrant rejection of the plaint at this stage. The plaintiff is entitled to present their case and evidence before the Court in due course. 14. The doctrine of res judicata, while designed to prevent abuse of Court process, must be invoked with caution and only after thorough examination of all relevant facts and prior judgments. The plaint here, when read holistically, indicates sufficient cause of action to sustain the suit and proceed to trial. 15.In view of the above discussion and in light of the binding precedents and settled principles, this Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has considered the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC while holding that the cause of action for filing the previous suit and the present suit is quite different. Further, the parties are also different, and as such, the suit would not be hit by the principle of res judicata. The said order is thus correct; however, the issue of res judicata cannot be adjudicated in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The correct proposition of law is that the question whether a suit is barred by res judicata requires examination of the previous suit, the issues involved therein, and those adjudicated and finally decided by the Court in the 12 previous as well as the present suit. Since, at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint and its documents are to be considered, the issue of res judicata cannot be conclusively decided. A comprehensive examination involving framing of issues and recording of evidence, both oral and documentary, is necessary. Therefore, at the preliminary stage, the question of res judicata cannot be decided. Accordingly, this revision is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The trial Court has correctly declined to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has rightly allowed the suit to proceed to trial for detailed determination of all factual and legal issues, including the question of res judicata. 16.In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition stands dismissed. The order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and decide all issues, including the question of res judicata, on merits after framing of issues and in accordance with law Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna