CR-6706-2023 (O&M) [112] Mishro Devi and others Ajay Gupta and Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] 06.07.2023 and that dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. Vide order dated 06.07.2023, the application filed by the defendants under Order The ground principle of the Trial Court fee was accepted and the plaintiff was directed to affix the fee. The plaintiff thereafter affixed the Court fee. Again objection was raised, which was decided vide order dated 18.09.2023, observing as under: [2] (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6706- Date of Decision : Mishro Devi and others versus Ajay Gupta and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Joshi, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition 06.07.2023 and that dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. Vide order dated 06.07.2023, the application filed by the defendants under Order VII The grounds on which the defendants sought principle of res judicata and bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC the Trial Court, whereas plea with respect to affixation of fee was accepted and the plaintiff was directed to affix the . The plaintiff thereafter affixed the Court fee. Again objection was raised, which was decided vide order dated 18.09.2023, observing as under: “The objection regarding the affixing of inadequate court fee stamp moved by the defendants No.1 to 4 shall be decided at the time of final decision of the present case.” Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, has assailed both the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.07.2025 …Petitioners ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Joshi, DAG, Haryana. for respondent Nos.1 to 8. The present revision petition is directed against order dated 06.07.2023 and that dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. Vide order dated 06.07.2023, the application Rule 11 CPC was partly allowed. on which the defendants sought dismissal of plaint, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, was rejected by whereas plea with respect to affixation of ad volerum Court fee was accepted and the plaintiff was directed to affix the ad volerum Court . The plaintiff thereafter affixed the Court fee. Again objection was raised, which was decided vide order dated 18.09.2023, observing as under: the affixing of inadequate court fee stamp moved by the defendants No.1 to 4 shall be decided at the time of final decision of the present case.” Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, has assailed both the 1 directed against order dated 06.07.2023 and that dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. Vide order dated 06.07.2023, the application Rule 11 CPC was partly allowed. i.e. was rejected by Court Court . The plaintiff thereafter affixed the Court fee. Again objection was raised, which was decided vide order dated 18.09.2023, observing as under:- the affixing of inadequate court fee stamp moved by the defendants No.1 to 4 shall be decided at the Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, has assailed both the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) orders. A issuing notice of motion [3] which stands decided vide (O&M) . At the stage of preliminary hearing issuing notice of motion, passed the following order: “ Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order has raised two-fold submissions. He submits that the present suit could be barred by principl between the parties including the substantial issue raised in the present case already stands decided in the earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No.100 RT of 2007, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2015 and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court dated 07.09.2021, which was a title suit claiming possession. He further submits that the present suit has been filed seeking decree of possession including decree of declaration and permanent injunction and thus the plaintiff was required to affix ad valorem Court fee in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that so far as the first plea raised by Mr. Yad concerned, the same sans merit. The subsequent suit is between the same parties or the parties claiming under the parties in the earlier suit and the issues were also same. However, the same were never decided on the merits for the reason, suit for possession was dismissed as the land stood acquired by the State Government and there was no assertion with respect to identify/area of land left. However, counsel for the petitioners seems to be right in contending that in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh and others 2807, once the plaintiffs claimed possession, they were required to pay ad valorem Court fee. Notice of motion for 27.02.2025. ” SLP No.5569 of 2025 was preferred against the said order, which stands decided vide order dated 21.02.2025, observing as under “1. The petitioners challenge the final judgment and order dated 26-11-2024 in CR No.6706/2023 (O&M) passed by the High hearing, this Court on 26.11.2024, while passed the following order:- Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned fold submissions. He submits that the present suit could be barred by principle of res judicata, as the rights between the parties including the substantial issue raised in the present case already stands decided in the earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No.100 RT of 2007, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree affirmed by the learned Appellate Court dated 07.09.2021, which was a title suit claiming possession. He further submits that the present suit has been filed seeking decree of possession including decree of declaration and permanent injunction e plaintiff was required to affix ad valorem Court fee in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that so far as the first plea raised by Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the same sans merit. The subsequent suit is between the same parties or the parties claiming under the parties in the earlier suit and the issues were also same. However, the same were never rits for the reason, suit for possession was dismissed as the land stood acquired by the State Government and there was no assertion with respect to identify/area of land left. However, counsel for the petitioners seems to be right in contending that in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Suhrid Singh @ Randhir Singh and others’, 2010 AIR (SC) e the plaintiffs claimed possession, they were required to Notice of motion for 27.02.2025. ” was preferred against the said order, dated 21.02.2025, observing as under:- The petitioners challenge the final judgment and order dated 2024 in CR No.6706/2023 (O&M) passed by the High 2 his Court on 26.11.2024, while Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned fold submissions. He submits that the present e of res judicata, as the rights between the parties including the substantial issue raised in the present case already stands decided in the earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No.100 RT of 2007, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree affirmed by the learned Appellate Court dated 07.09.2021, which was a title suit claiming possession. He further submits that the present suit has been filed seeking decree of possession including decree of declaration and permanent injunction e plaintiff was required to affix ad valorem Court fee in After hearing counsel for the petitioners and carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that so far as the av, counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the same sans merit. The subsequent suit is between the same parties or the parties claiming under the parties in the earlier suit and the issues were also same. However, the same were never rits for the reason, suit for possession was dismissed as the land stood acquired by the State Government and However, counsel for the petitioners seems to be right in contending that in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act as Suhrid Singh @ ’, 2010 AIR (SC) e the plaintiffs claimed possession, they were required to was preferred against the said order, The petitioners challenge the final judgment and order dated 2024 in CR No.6706/2023 (O&M) passed by the High RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) [4] with respect to the present suit, wherein reference has been made to the earlier suit bearing Civil Suit No.100RT of 2007/2012 titled as versus Mishro Devi and others been referred to under Order documents and testing the application on the touch stone o order to hammerforth by the Supreme Court in the case of and others’, reported as 2021(2) RCR (Civil) 287 been placed upon India Staff Association’, reported as 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 334 that it is infirmities as enumerated under (O&M) Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s). 3. Having considered the contentions made across the Bar, we do not find any reason to grant Special Leave to Appeal, as the order is interim in nature and the matter is already pending before the High No.2 of the impugned order shall not be treated as having decided the issue on merits. The parties are at liberty to agitate the same in the matter pending before the High Court. 4. As such, the present Special Leave Petition is dismissed. 5. Needless to add, it shall be interim relief in accordance with the law. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, has with respect to res judicata. He refers to the averments made in the plaint in the present suit, wherein reference has been made to the earlier suit bearing Civil Suit No.100RT of 2007/2012 titled as versus Mishro Devi and others’ and submits that once been referred to in the plaint, the Court at the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not precluded from looking at the said documents and testing the application on the touch stone o hammerforth his contentions, he relies upon ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘K. Akbar Ali and others’, reported as 2021(2) RCR (Civil) 287 been placed upon ‘Popat and Kotecha Property India Staff Association’, reported as 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 334 that it is a duty of the Court to reject the plaint when the same is hit by infirmities as enumerated under Order VII Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s). Having considered the contentions made across the Bar, we do not find any reason to grant Special Leave to Appeal, as the order is interim in nature and the matter is already High Court. However, we clarify that Para order shall not be treated as having decided the issue on merits. The parties are at liberty to agitate the same in the matter pending As such, the present Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Needless to add, it shall be open for the petitioners to pray for interim relief in accordance with the law. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, has re-agitated the issue . He refers to the averments made in the plaint in the present suit, wherein reference has been made to the earlier suit bearing Civil Suit No.100RT of 2007/2012 titled as ‘Prem Nath and another ’ and submits that once the document has plaint, the Court at the stage of deciding application Rule 11 CPC is not precluded from looking at the said documents and testing the application on the touch stone of the same. In is contentions, he relies upon ratio of law laid down K. Akbar Ali versus K. Umar Khan and others’, reported as 2021(2) RCR (Civil) 287. Further reliance has ‘Popat and Kotecha Property versus State Bank of India Staff Association’, reported as 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 334 to submit duty of the Court to reject the plaint when the same is hit by VII Rule 11 CPC and ‘Foreshore Co 3 Having considered the contentions made across the Bar, we do not find any reason to grant Special Leave to Appeal, as the order is interim in nature and the matter is already Court. However, we clarify that Para order shall not be treated as having The parties are at liberty to agitate the same in the matter pending open for the petitioners to pray for the issue . He refers to the averments made in the plaint in the present suit, wherein reference has been made to the earlier suit bearing ‘Prem Nath and another ument has plaint, the Court at the stage of deciding application Rule 11 CPC is not precluded from looking at the said the same. In is contentions, he relies upon ratio of law laid down Khan . Further reliance has nk of to submit duty of the Court to reject the plaint when the same is hit by ‘Foreshore Co- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) operative Housing Society Limited versus Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through LRs and others’, reported as mandate as provided under [5] the plaintiffs have unsuccessfully sought possession of the same property in the earlier suit, the present suit merely by adding official defendants array of the invoking O [6] that as per settled proposition of law, plea of of fact and law and the same cannot be adjudicated at the without the earlier suit, there was no finding recorded with respect to title as is evident from Para No.30 of the judgment, wherein reference was made to acquisition of the land. He submits that until khasra number res judicata. [7] through record of the case. [8] peruse bare provisions as contained under Section 11 and CPC, which reads as under: (O&M) operative Housing Society Limited versus Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through LRs and others’, reported as mandate as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been reiterated. Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners thus, sub the plaintiffs have unsuccessfully sought possession of the same property in the earlier suit, the present suit merely by adding official defendants of the parties shall not be maintainable and deserves to be rejected invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Per contra, Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8, submits that as per settled proposition of law, plea of of fact and law and the same cannot be adjudicated at the without there being any evidence on record. He further submits that earlier suit, there was no finding recorded with respect to title as is evident from Para No.30 of the judgment, wherein reference was made to acquisition of the land. He submits that until and unless it is proved as to khasra number the land falls, the aforesaid findings cannot be held to be res judicata. I have heard counsel for the parties and through record of the case. In order to appreciate the rival contention peruse bare provisions as contained under Section 11 and CPC, which reads as under:- “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, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit operative Housing Society Limited versus Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through LRs and others’, reported as 2015 AIR (SC) 2006, wherein the 7 Rule 11 CPC has been reiterated. Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners thus, submits that once the plaintiffs have unsuccessfully sought possession of the same property in the earlier suit, the present suit merely by adding official defendants in parties shall not be maintainable and deserves to be rejected Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8, submits that as per settled proposition of law, plea of res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law and the same cannot be adjudicated at the nascent sta re being any evidence on record. He further submits that in earlier suit, there was no finding recorded with respect to title as is evident from Para No.30 of the judgment, wherein reference was made to acquisition and unless it is proved as to under which the land falls, the aforesaid findings cannot be held to be I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone he rival contentions, it will be apt peruse bare provisions as contained under Section 11 and Order VII Rule 11 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 the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit 4 operative Housing Society Limited versus Praveen D. Desai (Dead) , wherein the mits that once the plaintiffs have unsuccessfully sought possession of the same property in in the parties shall not be maintainable and deserves to be rejected Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8, submits is a mixed question stage in the earlier suit, there was no finding recorded with respect to title as is evident from Para No.30 of the judgment, wherein reference was made to acquisition which the land falls, the aforesaid findings cannot be held to be carefully gone apt to Rule 11 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 the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) (O&M) or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation I.—The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation III.—The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and ought to have made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, fo purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former sui references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII.—An issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit s been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a decision of such Court. The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. An issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court 5 or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit s been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not the purposes of this in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves r the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this t shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding An issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) [9] documents appended to the plaint form considered CPC. Reference can be made to Order that the documents appended to the plaint form question befor (O&M) of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent su or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Order VII Rule 11. Rejection of plaint 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 properl written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the 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 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-papers, 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. ” There can’t be any quarrel documents appended to the plaint form considered while adjudicating upon application under Order VII Rule 11 Reference can be made to Order the documents appended to the plaint form question before this Court is:- ‘Whether merely by referring to the plaint in the earlier suit finding can be recorded that subsequent suit is barred by res of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent su or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. 11. 11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected 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 written 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 (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 ng of the requisite stamp-papers 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 as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to There can’t be any quarrel with the proposition that the documents appended to the plaint form part of the plaint and can be while adjudicating upon application under Order VII Rule 11 Reference can be made to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, which provides the documents appended to the plaint form part of plaint. However, the hether merely by referring to the plaint in the earlier suit that subsequent suit is barred by res 6 of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit The plaint shall be rejected (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to y valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being paper within a statement in the plaint to be (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 papers 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 as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to that the of the plaint and can be while adjudicating upon application under Order VII Rule 11 which provides plaint. However, the hether merely by referring to the plaint in the earlier suit a that subsequent suit is barred by res RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) [10] while dealing with the issue of the plaint being barred by the principle of judicata, CCC 487 held that: [11] (O&M) judicata.’ The issue arose before the Supreme Court in dealing with the issue of the plaint being barred by the principle of judicata, Supreme Court in ‘Keshav Sood versus Kirti Pradeep Sood’, 2023(4) held that:- 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 CPC. Apart from pleadings in the earlier suit, several other documents which his application under Rule 11 of be gone into for deciding the issue of res judicata. 5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of 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 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 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 Singl Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on merits. Similar observations were made in Prakash (SC)’ 2023(1) RCR (rent) 398 34. The general principle of CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the sam issue arose before the Supreme Court in a case, wherein dealing with the issue of the plaint being barred by the principle of Keshav Sood versus Kirti Pradeep Sood’, 2023(4) After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the the plea of res judicata could not have been gone into on an application made by the appellant under Rule 11 . 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 CPC were required to be gone into for deciding the issue of res judicata. 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. 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 were made in ‘Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash (SC)’ 2023(1) RCR (rent) 398: The general principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and 7 wherein dealing with the issue of the plaint being barred by the principle of res Keshav Sood versus Kirti Pradeep Sood’, 2023(4) After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the the plea of res judicata could not have been gone into on an application made by the appellant under Rule 11 . Apart from pleadings in the earlier suit, were relied upon by the appellant in were required to 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 documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have r 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 e Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised ‘Prem Kishore v. Brahm of the CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the e matter which was directly and RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) [12] (O&M) substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plainti produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. 35. In the present case, before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into. Whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such ot up. Powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC would not be available. The High Court therefore, committed an error in rejecting the plaint. 36. The seminal question that we need to decide in the present appeal is whether the first suit i.e. the Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 filed by late Samey Singh was dismissed on merits. To put it in other words, whether the finding recorded by the Rent Controller while dismissing the Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 that the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed as the plaintiff Samey Singh had failed to establish the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties could be said to be on merits so as to render second Eviction Petition No. 136 of 2001 not maintainable on the principles of res judicata. The same view was echoed in Limited v. Ashok Vidyarthi substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be suit. In the present case, before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into. Whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC under such circumstances would not be available. The High Court therefore, committed an estion that we need to decide in the present appeal is whether the first suit i.e. the Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 filed by late Samey Singh was dismissed on merits. To put it in other words, whether the finding recorded by the Rent Controller dismissing the Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 that the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed as the plaintiff Samey Singh had failed to establish the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties could be said to be on merits so as to render second Eviction Petition No. 136 of 2001 not maintainable on the echoed in ‘Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited v. Ashok Vidyarthi’, (SC) 2023 INSC 1043: 8 substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of ff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of dditional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be In the present case, before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into. Whether such an issue was substantively at her questions may crop under such circumstances would not be available. The High Court therefore, committed an estion that we need to decide in the present appeal is whether the first suit i.e. the Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 filed by late Samey Singh was dismissed on merits. To put it in other words, whether the finding recorded by the Rent Controller dismissing the Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 that the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed as the plaintiff Samey Singh had failed to establish the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties could be said to be on merits so as to render the second Eviction Petition No. 136 of 2001 not maintainable on the Eldeco Housing and Industries RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6706-2023 (O&M) [13] adjudicated after appreciating the evidence on record suit, findings recorded in the earlier suit and the evidence and the prayer made in the subsequent suit plaint cannot be rejected, claiming is not possible to record finding evidence in subsequent suit in light of findings in earlier suit [14] petition. The same is ordered to be [15] Section 7(5) to submit that open. The contention being raised is without even reading the impugned order. Precisely been kept open vide impugned order [16] disposed off 11.07.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) 26. However, the fact remains that all the aforesaid documents, referred to by the respondent in support of his plea for rejection of the plaint, cannot be considered at this stage as these are not part of the record with the Court filed along with the plaint. taken by the respondent-defendant in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the s decision of the application under Trite it is that the issue with respect to adjudicated after appreciating the evidence on record suit, findings recorded in the earlier suit and the evidence and the prayer made in the subsequent suit. This Court finds that at the initial stage, the plaint cannot be rejected, claiming the same is not possible to record findings to this respect without in subsequent suit in light of findings in earlier suit In view of the above, finding no merits in the present revision petition. The same is ordered to be dismi At this stage, Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, refers to Section 7(5) to submit that if the Court fee is deficient open. The contention being raised is without even reading the impugned recisely, this is what the Trial Court has ordered. The issue has kept open vide impugned order dated 18.09.202 All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. .07.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable However, the fact remains that all the aforesaid documents, referred to by the respondent in support of his plea for rejection of the plaint, cannot be considered at this stage as these are not part of the record with the Court filed along with the plaint. This is the stand defendant in the application filed Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. As noticed above, no amount of the controversy can be examined at the stage of decision of the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Trite it is that the issue with respect to res judicata has to be adjudicated after appreciating the evidence on record regarding parties to the suit, findings recorded in the earlier suit and the evidence and the prayer his Court finds that at the initial stage, the the same to be barred by res judicata as to this respect without appreciating in subsequent suit in light of findings in earlier suit. In view of the above, finding no merits in the present revision dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, refers to the Court fee is deficient, the issue be kept open. The contention being raised is without even reading the impugned t the Trial Court has ordered. The issue has dated 18.09.2023. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 9 However, the fact remains that all the aforesaid documents, referred to by the respondent in support of his plea for rejection of the plaint, cannot be considered at this stage as these are not part of This is the stand defendant in the application filed . As noticed above, no amount of tage of has to be regarding parties to the suit, findings recorded in the earlier suit and the evidence and the prayer his Court finds that at the initial stage, the as it appreciating In view of the above, finding no merits in the present revision At this stage, Mr. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, refers to the issue be kept open. The contention being raised is without even reading the impugned t the Trial Court has ordered. The issue has All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.06 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document