Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010087382026 2026:GAU-AS:9621 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/62/2026 PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NHAI SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA VERSUS SRI JAI PRAKASH PRASAD SON OF LATE BISWANATH PRASAD AND LATE AGARMATI DEVI, RESIDENT OF BELTOLA, LAKHIMANDIR SIVAPUR, H/N, P.O. BELTOLA P.S. BASISHTHA GUWAHATI 781028 DISTRICT KAMRUP M, ASSAM 2:ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R J DAS, MS. P BHATTACHARJEE Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 15.07.2026 Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharyee, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is preferred by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Shillong, Meghalay, challenging the order dated 12.02.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (Trial Court herein after) in Misc. (J) Case No. 787/2024, arising out of Money Suit No. 175/2022. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 12.02.2026,the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner - under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition are briefly stated as under:- The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted a Money Suit, No. 175/2022, claiming a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation for damages and mental agony on account of delay in disbursement of compensation, in respect of his land, acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, although the compensation hadalready been determined in statutory arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the said Act and worked out in execution Page No.# 3/9 proceedings. The petitioner herein had filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC,before the learned Trial Court, contending that the suit is barred by law in view of the special scheme under the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since any grievance touching the arbitral award or its consequences lies only under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and not before the Civil Court. It was also contended that the claim of "mental agony" does not disclose any independent, legally sustainable cause of action and is merely an indirect attempt to reopen or enhance compensation already adjudicated. However, the learned Trial Court, vide impugned order, had rejected the petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned Trial Court, thereby,committed jurisdictional error and material irregularity in refusing to reject the plaint at the threshold, under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC and in allowing a non-maintainable suit to proceed, resulting in abuse of the process of Court. Being aggrieved this Civil Revision Petition is preferred challenging the impugned order dated 12 02 2026.” 5. Ms. Bhattacharyee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Money Suit No. 175/2022, claiming a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation by the respondent No.1, for alleged mental agony, on account of delay in disbursement of compensation in respect of land Page No.# 4/9 acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, and that the compensation hadalready been determined in statutory arbitration, under Section 3G(5) of the said Act, and worked out in execution proceedings and paid to the respondent No.1. She also submits that the Money Suit is not maintainable under the law as the same is barred by the principle of res- judicate and also barred by law and that the plaint does not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action. And therefore, the petitioner herein, had filed the petition,under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. But, the learned Trial Court, vide impugned order, had rejected the same and the said order is impugned in this revision petition. She also submits that the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be interfered with, as filing of the Money Suit is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, she has contended to interfere with the same. 5.1. However, to a pointed query of this court, as to under which provision of law the suit is barred, she repeatedly submits that it is barred by the principle of res-judicata. Except that she could not show this court any provision of law, under which the suit is barred. 5.2. Again, to another query of this court, to the effect that when the res- judicata is a mixed question of facts and law, can the court dismissed the suit without a trial after formulation of the issue on that point, she submits that even though the issue of res-judicata is a mixed question of facts and law, the court can reject the plaint at very threshold, when it is barred by the principle of res-judicata. 6. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also in view of the contentions made in the petition, the issue, to be answered by this court, is when admittedly res-judicata is a mixed question Page No.# 5/9 of law and fact, can the court reject the plaint at the very threshold, under order VII Rule 11(d) CPC? 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on the record and also the impugned order dated 12.02.2026. Also, gone through the relevant provision of law. 8. In order to deal with the issue with greater precision, this court deemed it appropriate to extract the operative portion of the finding of the learned Trial Court, which confins to para No. 19, 20, 21, herein below:- “19. In this case, whether the present claim should have been raised earlier and whether the issue was previously decided cannot be determined solely from the plaint. Therefore, neither the NH Act and Arbitration Act nor the plea of res judicata or constructive res judicata creates a clear bar justifying rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and in this regard the issue is therefore answered in the negative, against the defendant. 20. In summary, the court finds that the plaint in Money Suit No. 175/2022 discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be barred by any law under Order VII Rule 11(a) or 11(d) CPC. The questions of maintainability raised by the defendant, Including the effect of the NH Act/Arbitration Act scheme and the plea of res judicata, will be decided as issues in the suit after full pleadings and, if necessary by evidence. Page No.# 6/9 21. Consequently, the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is rejected. The parties shall appear in Money Sui: No. 175/2022 on the next scheduled date. The defendant is to file a written statement, if not already filed, and appropriate issues, including those on maintainability and jurisdiction, will be framed.” 9. It is worth mentioning in this context that the law with regard to deciding a application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat, reported in(2021) 9 SCC 99, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guiding principle as under: - 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 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 Page No.# 7/9 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. 9.1. The aforesaid proposition is reaffirmed in subsequent decisions also. In the case of Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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.” 9.2. In view of aforesaid proposition of law, the issue, so formulated in para No.6, has to be answered in negative. Page No.# 8/9 10. In the instant case, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial court had considered all the material aspect of the matter including the relevant provision of law and then arrived at a finding that whether the present claim should have been raised earlier and whether the issue was previously decided, cannot be determined solely from the plaint, andtherefore, neither the NH Act and Arbitration Act nor the plea of res judicata or constructive res judicata creates a clear bar justifying rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and in this regard the issue is therefore answered in the negative. 11. Thus, having examined the impugned order, in the light of the aforesaid guiding principles, this court finds that the impugned order suffers from no irregularity or illegality or that the learned court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested upon it or exceeded its jurisdiction. 12. As discussed earlier, the learned counsel has failed demonstrate before this court about contravention of any other provision of law except however the res-judicata. And in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra)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). Thus, the contention of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid plea fell apart. 13. In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity requiring any interference of this court. Page No.# 9/9 14. In the result, this court finds the petition devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant