1 2026:CGHC:17134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 163 of 2024 1 - Rupnarayan (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 17-03-2026 1.1 - Smt. Ramdaya Devi W/o Late Rupnarayan Aged About 80 Years R/o Main Road Surajpur, Ward No. 16, Ram Mandir Para, Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 1.2 - Smt. Champa Gupta W/o Ganesh Prasad Gupta Aged About 58 Years D/o Late Rupnarayan, R/o Bazar Road, Sitapur, Police Station And Tehsil- Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 1.3 - Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Raju Prasad Gupta Aged About 52 Years D/o Late Rupnarayan, R/o Schoolpaara, Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) 1.4 - Smt. Usha Kumari Gupta D/o Late Rupnarayan Aged About 48 Years R/o Main Road Surajpur, Ward No. 16, Ram Mandir Para, Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 1.5 - Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Rupnarayan Aged About 46 Years R/o Main Road Surajpur, Ward No. 16, Ram Mandir Para, Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Kunti W/o Late Shri Shivnarayan Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Darripara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 6) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 3 - Ramesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Shivnarayan Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Darripara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 7) 4 - Suresh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Shivnarayan Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Darripara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 8) 5 - Smt. Uma Devi W/o Ramadhar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chopan, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 11) ... Applicants versus 1 - Manoj Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramkishun Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Nehru Park, Ketka Road, Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) 2 - Kunjbihari S/o Late Shri Rupnarayan Aged About 55 Years R/o Main Road Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2) 3 - Smt. Asha Devi W/o Shri Kunjbihari Aged About 47 Years R/o Main Road Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 3) 4 - Santosh Kumar S/o Late Shri Kunjbihari Aged About 20 Years R/o Main Road Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 4) 5 - Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Sitaram Sahu Aged About 44 Years (Now Death Till Date Name Not Deleted And Legal Hairs Not Brought On Record) (Defendant No. 5) 6 - Bechan Ram S/o Late Shri Ramsewak (Died Through Legal Representatives) 6.1 - (A) Om Prakash Gupta S/o Late Shri Bechan Ram Aged About 54 Years R/o B- 106, Ward No. 1, Gram Panchayat- Jarhi, Police Station Jarhi, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 9-A) 3 6.2 - (B) Jaikunwar W/o Late Shri Bechan Ram Aged About 71 Years R/o House No. 143, Ward No. 10, Area Kushwahapara, Gram Panchayat- Darripara, Tahsil- Bhaiyathana, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 9-B) 6.3 - (C) Jaiprakash S/o Late Shri Bechan Ram Aged About 47 Years R/o Area Sahupara, Gram Panchayat- Darripara, Tahsil- Bhaiyathana, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 9-C) 6.4 - (D) Saraswati Gupta D/o Late Shri Bechan Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Tahsilpara, Near Panchayat Office, Gram Panchayat- Lakhanpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Lakhanpur, District Surguja (Defendant No. 9-D) 7 - Ishwar Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramsewak Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Darripara, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 10) 8 - Smt. Premlata Agrawal D/o Babulal Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 12) 9 - Ramphal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Jainarayan Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 13) 10 - Vinod Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramkishun Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 14) 11 - Rambabu Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramkishun Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 15) 12 - Lalchand Agrawal S/o Late Shri Nanhuram Agrawal Aged About 75 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 16) 13 - Vijay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ishwar Prasad Agrawal (Died Represented Through Legal Heirs) 4 13.1 - (A) Smt. Ginni W/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 73 Years R/o Main Road, Town And Police Station- Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 17-A) 13.2 - (B) Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Main Road, Town And Police Station- Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 17-B) 13.3 - (C) Rakesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Main Road, Town And Police Station- Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 17-C) 14 - Girdhari Lal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ishwar Prasad Agrawal Aged About 65 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 18) 15 - Banke Bihari S/o Late Shri Ishwar Prasad Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 19) 16 - Gajanand Agrawal S/o Late Shri Banarasi Das Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 20) 17 - Ashok Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Nanhu Ram Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsildar And District Surajpur (Defendant No. 21) 18 - Shankar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Lacchu Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o Near Nagar Palika, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 22) 19 - Ramu Agrawal S/o Late Shri Nanhu Ram Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 23) 20 - Anand Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramavtar Agrawal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chandrashekharpur (Edu) Post Office And Police Station Chhal, Tahsil Dharmajaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 24) 5 21 - Shiv Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramavtar Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chandrashekharpur (Edu) Post Office And Police Station Chhal, Tahsil Dharmajaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 25) 22 - Govardhan Agrawal S/o Late Shri Harbilas Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o New Saletax Colony, Bhavana Nagar, B-13, Khamadihroad, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 26) 23 - Smt. Vimla Agrawal W/o Late Shri Habilas Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o New Saletax Colony, Bhavana Nagar, B-13, Khamadihroad, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 27) 24 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 28) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Applicants : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate along with Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 31A/2019 in the matter of Manoj Kumar Agrawal vs. Rupnarayan and 27 others. 6 2. The present case has its genesis in a long-standing family dispute dating back to the year 1947, arising out of partition of joint Hindu family property between the predecessors of the parties. Initially, the father of Respondent No. 7, namely Ramsewak, instituted a civil suit against his brother, who was the father of the present applicant, Sitaram, challenging an agreement dated 08.02.1947. It was pleaded that the parties constituted a joint Hindu family and, pursuant to the said agreement, the joint family property was partitioned, whereby certain properties, including Khasra Nos. 2133, 2134, and 2135 (the latter comprising a residential house), fell to the share of Ramsewak. It was further asserted that the house situated on Khasra No. 2135 was in possession of a tenant, from whom vacant possession was subsequently obtained by Ramsewak in the year 1950 after initiating legal proceedings. Thereafter, Ramsewak claimed to have raised construction for residential and business purposes, but owing to personal reasons, he shifted from the premises in 1962, leaving the property locked. According to him, on 10.04.1973, the father of the present applicant unlawfully occupied the said property, compelling him to institute a suit seeking possession, mesne profits, and damages. The defendants in the said suit contested the claim by denying the alleged partition dated 08.02.1947 and instead relied upon a subsequent registered partition deed dated 03.01.1958. They contended that the suit property belonged to them, having been 7 purchased from a third party, and that the tenant was inducted by them. It was further asserted that Ramsewak was never dispossessed as alleged. 3. Upon trial, the Civil Judge, Class-I, Ambikapur, by judgment dated 04.09.1985, decreed the suit in favour of Ramsewak, holding that the partition dated 08.02.1947 stood proved and that he was the rightful title holder who had been unlawfully dispossessed. Aggrieved thereby, the legal heirs of Sitaram preferred Civil Appeal No. 25-A/1985 before the First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, which was allowed by judgment dated 18.10.1996, thereby setting aside the decree of the trial court. The legal representatives of Ramsewak thereafter carried the matter in Second Appeal No. 5/1997 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 28.01.2019, affirming the findings of the first appellate court. The matter has since been carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 023661/2019, which remains pending consideration. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid litigation, a subsequent dispute arose when Respondent No. 1 instituted a fresh civil suit on 09.05.2019 claiming that his father, Late Ramkishun Agarwal, had purchased a portion of land admeasuring 0.020 hectares from Khasra No. 2134 through a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1989 from Ramsewak. On the strength of such purchase, the plaintiff claimed ownership, partition, possession, and 8 permanent injunction in respect of the said land. The present applicants, being defendants therein, filed their written statement denying the claim and asserting that the vendor, Ramsewak, himself had no valid title in view of the adverse decree passed in the earlier round of litigation, and consequently, no right could have been conveyed to the plaintiff’s predecessor. 5. In the course of proceedings, the applicants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the suit was barred by law, particularly on the ground of res judicata, as the issue of title had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings. However, the trial court, by order dated 30.11.2021, rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff in the present suit was not a party to the earlier litigation and that the nature of the relief claimed was distinct. Subsequently, the trial court framed issues in the suit but did not frame any issue regarding maintainability, despite the specific objection raised by the applicants. The applicants thereafter filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of an additional issue on maintainability. It is also pertinent that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. (AIR 2021 SC 3802) clarified that the issue of res judicata cannot ordinarily be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC without examination of previous records. Thereafter, 9 the applicants filed a fresh application under Section 11 CPC on 30.07.2024 raising the plea of res judicata, which was again rejected by the trial court vide order dated 03.09.2024, primarily on the ground that a similar application had earlier been dismissed on 30.11.2021 and had not been challenged before the appellate forum, and therefore, the subsequent application on the same grounds was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the rejection of the said application, the applicants have approached this Court seeking setting aside of the order dated 03.09.2024, contending that the same is perverse, contrary to settled principles of law, and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submits that the present Civil Revision has been preferred assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order, which is contrary to settled principles of law and suffers from patent illegality. It is contended that the applicants had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically on the ground that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold. It is further submitted that the suit property bearing Khasra No. 2134 was transferred during the pendency of earlier litigation, which squarely attracts the doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is argued that the plaintiff himself has admitted that his predecessor-in-interest 10 purchased the property during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 25-A/1985. In such circumstances, any transfer made pendente lite would be subject to the final outcome of the litigation. Since the earlier proceedings ultimately culminated against Ramsewak, the vendor had no subsisting right, title, or interest to convey, and consequently, no valid title could have been transferred to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has no enforceable legal right to institute the present suit, rendering the same not maintainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further contends that the present suit is clearly barred by the doctrine of res judicata, inasmuch as the issue relating to title and possession of the suit property has already been conclusively adjudicated in earlier proceedings between the parties and their predecessors. It is submitted that the principle of res judicata not only binds the parties to the earlier litigation but also extends to transferees pendente lite, who claim through such parties. Therefore, the present plaintiff, claiming through Ramsewak, is equally bound by the earlier adjudication. It is also argued that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application by merely observing that a similar application had earlier been decided, without appreciating the legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. (AIR 2021 SC 3802). It is submitted that the said judgment clearly holds that the issue of res 11 judicata involves consideration of pleadings and judgments of earlier proceedings and cannot be summarily rejected without proper adjudication. The trial Court ought to have examined the matter on merits, rather than dismissing the application on technical grounds. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the present suit is based on the same subject matter and derives its foundation from the same source of title which has already been negatived in the earlier round of litigation. The parties are substantially the same, as the present plaintiff claims through Ramsewak, and the defendants are the legal heirs of the earlier contesting parties. Hence, the bar of res judicata squarely applies. It is lastly submitted that the doctrine of res judicata is founded upon sound principles of public policy, namely, that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause and that there must be finality to litigation. The present suit is a clear attempt to re-agitate issues already settled, thereby causing multiplicity of proceedings and serious prejudice to the applicants. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside and the suit be held to be barred by law. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and submits that the plea of res judicata has already been specifically raised by the defendants in their written statement, particularly in paragraph 3 12 thereof. It is contended that the said issue is, therefore, already part of the pleadings and is required to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. It is further submitted that the defendants themselves have filed a separate application seeking framing of an additional issue on res judicata, which demonstrates that the matter involves mixed questions of fact and law and cannot be decided at the threshold. Hence, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court, and no interference is warranted in the present revision. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 9. From the record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties is a long-standing one, tracing its origin back to earlier rounds of litigation between their predecessors, and the issue of title in respect of the suit property has been the subject matter of adjudication before competent courts. It is also not in dispute that in the present suit, the defendants/applicants have specifically raised the plea of res judicata in their written statement, particularly in paragraph No. 3 thereof. Once such a plea has been raised in the pleadings, the trial Court is under an obligation to consider the same in accordance with law. The issue of res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law and ordinarily requires proper adjudication upon framing of an issue and leading of evidence by the parties. 13 10. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.09.2024, it appears that the learned trial Court has rejected the application primarily on the ground that a similar application had earlier been dismissed and that the same was not challenged before a higher forum. However, such rejection does not address the core issue, namely, whether the plea of res judicata, already taken in the written statement, requires adjudication by framing an appropriate issue. It is further evident that despite the specific plea taken by the defendants, no issue with regard to res judicata has been framed by the trial Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, once such a foundational plea goes to the root of maintainability of the suit, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to frame a specific issue and decide the same after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. 11. This Court also takes note of the fact that the parties have been litigating for a considerable period of time and have repeatedly approached this Court for redressal of their grievances, yet the suit itself is still pending adjudication. In such circumstances, instead of prolonging the proceedings on technical objections, it would be in the interest of justice that all material issues, including the issue of res judicata, are properly framed and decided on merits. 12. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the learned trial 14 Court to frame a specific issue with regard to res judicata, as the said plea has already been raised by the defendants in their written statement. The trial Court shall thereafter proceed to decide the said issue in accordance with law, after permitting the parties to adduce evidence and after affording them due opportunity of hearing. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all questions, including the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, are left open to be decided by the trial Court independently on the basis of evidence and in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 is set aside to the limited extent indicated hereinabove. The learned trial Court is directed to frame an issue regarding res judicata and decide the same expeditiously, preferably along with other issues, in accordance with law. 15. The Civil Revision stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge