ORDER : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and set aside the order dated 09/05/2024 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Katghora District- Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.96-A/2019 by which the application Under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were defendant Nos. 1 to 12, and the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5 were the plaintiffs, while non-applicant No. 6 was defendant No. 13 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Katghora against the defendants concerning the lands mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint situated at Village Putwa, P.H. No. 30, R.I. Circle Podi Uproda, District Korba (C.G.), and Village Bankheta, P.H. No. 30, R.I. Circle Podi Uproda, District Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land" for brevity). The suit land originally belonged to Kushal Singh, and the plaintiffs are the descendants of Kushal Singh. The plaintiffs belong to the Tanwar caste, and they are not governed by Hindu Law but by their customary practices, wherein a daughter has no right over ancestral property. After the death of Kushal Singh, the male members of the family partitioned the property and are in possession of their respective shares. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the defendants, in collusion with the revenue authorities, got their names mutated in the revenue records concerning the suit land. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the present civil suit. It is pertinent to mention that prior to filing the present civil suit, the plaintiffs had instituted Civil Suit No. 19- A/2012 (renumbered as 35-A/2014) before the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), against the same defendants concerning the same lands. In the said previous suit, the defendants had filed their written statements, and the Trial Court had also framed issues. In the said previous suit, the defendants had filed their written statements, and the Trial Court had also framed issues. However, after the framing of issues, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking withdrawal of the said civil suit. The defendants had filed their reply to the said application. Pursuant to the application filed under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, the previous Civil Suit No. 19-A/2012 (renumbered as 35-A/2014) was permitted to be withdrawn on 30.10.2019 by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). Since the plaintiffs had previously filed a civil suit concerning the same lands and against the same defendants, the present suit was alleged to be barred in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC. Accordingly, an application was filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Upon receiving the said application, the plaintiffs filed their reply denying all the averments of the defendants and contended that the suit was maintainable. The learned Trial Court, after hearing submissions from both sides, dismissed the application filed by defendant No. 1 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC vide its order dated 09.05.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiffs had previously filed a civil suit concerning the same lands against the same defendants, which was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. It is specifically submitted that the earlier civil suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs vide order dated 30.10.2019, wherein it was specifically recorded that the plaintiffs cannot institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Therefore, the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs was clearly barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC, and the plaint was liable to be rejected. Therefore, the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs was clearly barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC, and the plaint was liable to be rejected. The learned trial Court, however, failed to consider this crucial fact and dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that since the earlier suit had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs and a fresh suit on the same subject matter has been filed thereafter, the subsequent suit is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata as well as by the specific provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the plaint filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be rejected as not maintainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective non-applicants have opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that instant civil revision is not maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the previous suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the principle of res judicata would not be applicable in the present case. It is further submitted that the earlier suit was not decided on merits, and as such, there is no bar under law preventing the plaintiffs from filing the present suit. Hence, the present suit is maintainable in law and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents along with this civil revision. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.08.2024 has passed the interim order in favour of the applicants, to the following effect:- “Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2024, an application for stay. Learned counsel for the applicants/ defendants would submit that earlier, a Civil Suit, claiming therein relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction, was filed, which was withdrawn according to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC on 30.10.2019, but no permission was sought for by the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. Learned counsel for the applicants/ defendants would submit that earlier, a Civil Suit, claiming therein relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction, was filed, which was withdrawn according to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC on 30.10.2019, but no permission was sought for by the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. He would further submit that on the same set of facts between same parties, pertaining to the same suit property, the plaintiff filed a fresh Civil Suit No. 96A of 2019, wherein one more relief of possession was sought for. He would also submit that the subsequent suit is barred by Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC. Mr. Pranjal Shukla, learned P.L. appearing for the State would oppose. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Pandey and the facts of the present case, a strong case is made out for grant of interim relief; therefore, the proceeding of pending Civil Suit No. 96A of 2019 pending before the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.” 7. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and another passed in Civil Appeal No.7743/2025 decided on 14.07.2025 has dealt with the similar issue and held as follows :- “8. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors, (2021) 9 SC 99 , this court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the court held: “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 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." (emphasis supplied) Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant No. 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser or not need to be examined in detail. This Court has held that such circumstances require an in-depth examination of the previous decree, and its impact on the second suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint. As held by this Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551 , identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023, this Court 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. 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. From the order passed by the Trial Court it is apparent that there is neither consideration nor analysis of the case set up by the appellant in plaint. Further, the Trial Court questioned the legality of plaintiff’s action on the ground that, “he did not raise any objection regarding the decree passed in O.S. No. 298/96. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the plea of fraud raised by the 1 st respondent is not acceptable one.” With this view of the matter, the Trial Court rejected the objection of the appellant to the applicability of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC by holding; “12. The respondents counsel submitted that such a type of question cannot be decided as preliminary issue. In support of his contention. They have filed our Hon'ble court judgment 2009(4) LW 432 , and 2007 A.L.W 580, 2000(3) MLJ 342 ,2002(1)LW 398. But those are dealing with regarding court fees. But as far as the case on hand is concerned. It is not regarding court fees. Therefore the above said citations is not apply to this suit. For the above said reasons and explanations. The petition is allowed. No cost.” 11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. The appellant’s revision under Article 227 was similarly dismissed by the High Court holding that the decision of the Trial Court does not warrant interference. 12. For the above said reasons and explanations. The petition is allowed. No cost.” 11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. The appellant’s revision under Article 227 was similarly dismissed by the High Court holding that the decision of the Trial Court does not warrant interference. 12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96 dated 29.07.1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not have been decided under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief. 13. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court in CRP (PD) No. 1454 of 2014 dated 20.03.2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Portonovo to its original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. 14. While concluding, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the grounds raised by the 8defendants, including those relating to res judicata are kept open for final determination.” 8. It is a settled principle of law that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered. The defence raised by the defendants in the written statement or in the application is not to be taken into account at that stage. Furthermore, it is well settled that for considering the question of res judicata, the pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence led by the parties are required to be examined, which has not been done in the present case. 9. Furthermore, it is well settled that for considering the question of res judicata, the pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence led by the parties are required to be examined, which has not been done in the present case. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurangan (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered and the defence raised in the written statement or any application is irrelevant at that stage, and further, that the question of res judicata requires proper adjudication after pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence, this Court finds no infirmity in the trial Court's approach in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 10. Accordingly, the defendants are granted liberty to raise all permissible objections, including the plea of res judicata, in their written statement. The trial Court shall frame appropriate issues in that regard and decide the same in accordance with law. 11. Since the proceedings of the trial were stayed vide order dated 12.08.2024, the said interim order is hereby vacated. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the matter in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this civil revision stands disposed of.