1 2026:CGHC:6056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 287 of 2025 1 - Ajay Verma S/o Late Shri Bhuvan Lal Verma Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Saja, P.S. And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Vijay Verma S/o Late Shri Bhuvan Lal Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Saja, P.S. And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, C.G. 2 - Yatish Verma S/o Late Shri Bhuvan Lal Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Saja, P.S. And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, C.G. 3 - Smt. Kiran Verma D/o Late Shri Bhuvan Lal Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Bhilai-03, Tahsil - Patan, District Durg, C.G. 4 - Smt. Kavita Verma D/o Late Shri Bhuvan Lal Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Mahavir Ward No. 6, Saja, District Bemetara, C.G. 5 - Smt. Meera Verma W/o Late Shri Bhuvan Lal Verma Aged About 84 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Saja, P.S. And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, C.G. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bemetara, C.G. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 .. Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Mr. Shivendra Kumar, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. Arising out of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saja, District Bemetra in Civil Suit No. 53A/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been dismissed, which order is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Hence, the instant revision is being preferred. 2. Following prayer has been made by way of this revision:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 18/9/2025, passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saja, District Bemetra in Civil Suit No.53A/2024, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the instant civil suit bearing No.53A/2024 before the learned Trial Court seeking declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land 3 situated at Village Saja, P.H. No.9, R.I. Circle Saja, District Bemetra (C.G.), bearing Survey No.3553/2 admeasuring 0.10 hectare and Survey No.1686 admeasuring 0.03 hectare. The defendant No.1/applicant appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that, as per the averments contained in paragraph 5 of the plaint itself, an earlier suit relating to the same cause of action had already been filed and decided, and therefore the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 12 of the CPC. The respondent No.1/plaintiff, in his reply, admitted the filing of the earlier suit and further admitted that the present suit has been instituted again seeking the same relief, though including Survey Nos.3553/2 and 1686 which were not included earlier. However, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the application solely on the ground that copies of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.41A/2017 and the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2023 passed in First Appeal No.16A/2022 were not filed, and consequently dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, giving rise to the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, who was defendant No. 1 before the trial Court, submits that the plaintiffs had previously filed a suit registered as Civil Suit No. 4A/2017, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed seeking the same relief. As such, 4 the subsequent suit is hit by the principles of res judicata. However, the trial Court has not considered this aspect and has passed the impugned order holding that the issue of res judicata cannot be decided at the initial stage without considering the documents, and therefore the suit cannot be dismissed on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of being barred by the principles of res judicata. 5. Earlier, notices were issued; however, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents in this case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Since the issue involved in the present matter already stands settled by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has consistently been held that the plea of res judicata cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold merely on the objection raised by the defendant, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the Court is required to confine itself to the averments made in the plaint alone. The defence raised by the defendants cannot be looked into at the nascent stage of the trial. 8. For adjudicating the question of res judicata, it is necessary to examine the pleadings, issues and judgment of the previous suit, along with the cause of action on which the subsequent suit has 5 been instituted. In the absence of such material forming part of the plaint, the said issue cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that the suit cannot be rejected at this stage on the ground of res judicata. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to frame an appropriate issue with regard to the plea of res judicata and decide the same in accordance with law at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha