1 2026:CGHC:26560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 59 of 2026 Ghanshyam Jaiswal @ Raja Jaiswal S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Jaiswal Aged About 63 Years R/o Noorani Chowk Raja Talab Raipur (C.G.) Presently Residing At A-V.I.P. Estates Shankar Nagar Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant/Defendant No.1 versus 1 - Purshottam Lal Sharma S/o Late Onkarlal Shrama Advocate R/o Near Prem Jyoti Mahila Police Station Bc Shukla Ward Bayron Bazar Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2 - Radheyshyam Verma S/o Lallu Prasad Verma R/o Kailashpur Tikrapara Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No.2) 3 - Anupam Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit Raipur (C.G.) Registered Under Section 7 M.P. Sahkari Samitiyaan Adhiniyam 1960 (Sr. 17 Year 1960) At Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Head Office Je 6, Sriram Nagar Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No.3) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 : None present though served (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. Heard on IA No.02/2026, application for condonation of delay in filing instant civil revision. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.07.02 10:29:18 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 raised objection on the above application. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, IA No.02/2026 is allowed and delay of 44 days in filing the revision is condoned. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. Present civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the applicant/defendant No.1 challenging the Order dated 16.9.2025 passed by 5th Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Raipur in Civil Suit No.90A/2021, whereby the application filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 11 and Order II Rule 2(2) CPC has been rejected. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed civil Suit bearing No.90A/2021 for declaration of his possession, title and permanent injunction against the applicant/defendant No.1 and respondents 2 & 3. The applicant/defendant No.1 filed application (Annexure-A/8) under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 11 and Order II Rule 2(2) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. After providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the plaint are required to be considered, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The trial Court further observed that since the civil suit was at a preliminary stage, the plaint could not be rejected on the basis of the application filed by the applicant/Defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3 7. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No.1 submits that in the aforesaid application, the applicant had raised not only the ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but also raised objection under Order II Rule 2(2) CPC. It is contended that in the earlier Civil Suit No. 24A/2004, respondent No. 1/Plaintiff had failed to claim the reliefs which have now been sought in the present suit, despite being impleaded therein as Plaintiff No. 4. Learned counsel further submits that aforesaid earlier civil suit was disposed on 02.01.2018, as the plaintiffs of that case, including present respondent No.1/plaintiff - Purshottam Lal Sharma did not press the civil suit, hence, present civil suit is barred by limitation. Despite that, the learned trial Court without considering aforesaid aspects, has dismissed the application (Annexure-A/8) filed by the applicant/defendant No.1. Hence, it is prayed that this revision may be allowed,the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 may be quashed and the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 may be dismissed. 8. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that earlier Civil Suit No.24A/2004 was not decided on merits, rather it was disposed of prior to framing of the issues, therefore, neither the principle of res judicata nor the bar under Order II Rule 2(2) CPC is attracted. Learned counsel further submits that it is settled law that the question of res judcata cannot be adjudicated summarily while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, hence, he supports the impugned order passed by the learned trail Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Perusal of the application filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 shows that his objection with regard to maintainability of the civil suit is based on 4 Section 11 read with Order II Rule 2(2) CPC, for which he has filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. But counsel for both the parties contended that earlier civil suit bearing No.24A/2004 was disposed of vide Order dated 01.02.2018, prior to framing of issues, that too on account of non-appearance/not pressing the civil suit by the plaintiffs, meaning thereby, it was not decided on merits. In such circumstances, at this preliminary stage, the present suit cannot be rejected on the ground of maintainability either under Section 11 or under Order II Rule 2(2) CPC. 11. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar and Anr. (2025) 10 SCC 279, after considering various judgments has held that, Plea of res judicata cannot be decided in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a plaint. Res Judicata is an issue to be decided in trial and cannot be summarily decided in an application to reject plaint. If the applicant/defendant No.1 has any contention regarding limitation in respect of maintainability of present civil suit, then he may raise this ground in the written statement to be filed before the trial Court. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid and considering that the present suit is still at the stage where the defendants are yet to file their written statements and issues are yet to be framed, all questions relating to limitation, maintainability, or the applicability of Section 11 or Order II Rule 2 CPC are matters to be decided on merit after recording evidence of the parties. However, after framing of the issues, if the defendants are not satisfied with the issues framed by the trial Court and if they wish to frame some additional issues, then they shall be at liberty to file application seeking recasting of additional issues in accordance with law. 5 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the present civil revision being devoid of merit is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini