Deen Dayal Pipraiya and 5 Others v. Ram Sharan

Order 7 Rule 11CPC." Referring to Kamala [Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661] , the Court further observed that :( SCC p. 650, para 12) "12. … The appellant has mentioned about the earlier two cases which were filed by Respondent 1 and wherein he failed. These are judicial records. The appellant can easily demonstrate the correctness of his averments by filing certified copies of the pleadings in the earlier two suits as well as copies of the judgments passed by the courts in those proceedings. In fact, copies of the orders passed in judgment and decree dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), copy of the judgment dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) upholding the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as well as copy of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division in Suit No. 268 of 2008 are placed on record by the appellant. While deciding the first suit, the trial court gave a categorical finding that as per MoU signed between the parties, Respondent 1 had accepted a sum of Rs 2,00,000 and, therefore, the said suit was barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. In a case like this, though recourse to Order 7 Rule 11CPC by the appellant was not appropriate, at the same time, the trial court may, after framing the issues, take up the issues which pertain to the maintainability of the suit and decide the same in the first instance. In this manner the appellant, or for that matter the parties, can be absolved of unnecessary agony of prolonged proceedings, in case the appellant is ultimately found to be correct in his submissions."

¶31This Court in Soumitra Kumar Sen [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] was examining a case where the defendant had moved an application before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC requesting the court to reject the plaint on the ground of res judicata. The Courts below had rejected such a prayer upon which the defendant had approached this Court. This Court, referring to its various judgments on the point, upheld such orders observing that if the averments made by the appellant in the written statement are correct, the suit may not be maintainable. However, at this stage, as rightly held by this Court, the defence in the written statement cannot be gone into. One has to look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC.

¶33On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC can be summarised as follows:

(i) 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;

(ii) The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application;

(iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (a) the "previous suit" is decided, (b) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (c) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (d) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and

(iv) 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. (See : Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat (2021) 9 SCC 99 : (2021) 4 SCC (Civ) 489] )"

¶18The above principle of law was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Pandurangan (supra). It was further held that in Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459, this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows:- "5. 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.

¶6Hence, 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."

¶19From the perusal of the above law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Kishore (supra) and Pandurangan (supra), it is evident that the issue of res judicata could not have been decided by the trial court, on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, where only the statement in the plaint are to be perused. It is clear that under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the written statement and the documents submitted by the defendant cannot be examined, to arrive at a conclusion that the suit is barred by res judicata. It is clear that the plea of res judicata requires detailed examination of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the previous suit which is beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, where only the plaint averments and documents of the plaintiff can be perused.

¶20In the instant case, it is evident that the trial court while deciding the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has considered his written statement, additional written statement and several documents submitted by him, which is contrary to the above law laid down by the Apex Court. The trial court erred in considering the written statement and documents submitted by the defendant while disposing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is also apparent that the plea of res judicata can only be examined after detailed examination of the pleadings of the parties in the earlier suit and after perusing all the relevant documents filed by the parties, which is impossible at the stage of deciding defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶21In view of the above, it is clear that the trial court committed material illegality in dismissing the plaintiff's suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC on ground of being barred by res judicata, as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

¶22The appeal is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10.11.2017 in O.S. No.205 of 2016 is set aside, the original suit is restored on it's original number. The matter is remitted back to the trial court.

¶23The trial court is directed to decide the issue of res judicata after framing it as a preliminary issue and after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence on this issue, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶24However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶25Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.

¶26Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶27All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Order Date-19.09.2025 Himanshu/Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

A.F.R. Judgment Reserved on- 15.09.2025 judgment Delivered on- 19.09.2025 Court No. - 35 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 678 of 2018 Appellant :- Deen Dayal Pipraiya And 5 Others Respondent :- Ram Sharan Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No.205 of 2016, Deen Dayal Pipraiya(deceased) through Lrs. vs. Ram Sharan against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Court of Sri Radhey Mohan Srivastava, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi whereby the plaintiff's suit for the relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. on the ground that it is barred by res judicata under Section 11 C.P.C. 2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff-appellant filed O.S. No.205 of 2016 in the lower court with the averments that Sri Thakur Maithli Raman Jee Maharaj, Virajman Mandir Kunj i.e. plaintiff no.2 is a private temple, of which the plaintiff no.1, Deen Dayal Pipraiya was the Manager. The immovable property of the temple is situated in Chak no.40 in Village Nunar, Tehsil Garautha, District Jhansi, whose khata numbers alongwith total area were specified in the plaint. 3. It was further averred that previously the owner of temple-plaintiff no.2 was Smt. Janki Bai widow of Rajaram, who inherited the property from her father-in-law, Mathura Prasad through registered gift dated 13.09.1938, which was registered at Book No.1, Jeeld 102, pages 322-324 at Sr. No.296 on 14.09.1938 in the office of Sub Registrar, Mauranipur, in which it was specifically mentioned that the right of appointing Manager, for managing the property of the temple vested solely in Smt. Janki Bai, and in accordance with that right, one person, namely Ram Sharan was appointed as manager of the temple. The plaintiff further averred that since Ram Sharan did not honestly managed the affairs of the temple and committed irregularities in the accounting, as such, Smt. Janki Bai removed him, and thereafter, appointed plaintiff no.1 as the Manager of plaintiff no.2. The plaintiff further averred that Smt. Janki Bai died on 18.02.1983, her father-in-law, Mathura Prasad also died in the 1940, but his registered gift deed has not been cancelled by any competent court till date. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant is a fraudulent person with malafide intention, who intends to illegally occupy the property of the temple plaintiff no.2, and to transfer it to some other person. The defendant also illegally harvested the crops standing on the property of plaintiff no.2. The defendant also managed to sell the property of plaintiff no.2, who is in the company of anti-social elements, who was having influence in political circles. It was also submitted that defendant had no concern with the property of the temple plaintiff no.2. 4. With these submissions, it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from selling, transferring the property of the plaintiff temple, from harvesting the crops standing on the temple property, by decree of permanent injunction granted by the court in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. During pendency of the suit, the defendant filed his written statement in which he accepted that on 13.09.1938, a registered gift deed by Mathura Prasad was executed in favour of Smt. Janki Bai, widow of Rajaram and he also accepted that a temple is situated on the disputed property. He also accepted that Janki Bai died on 18.02.1983 and also her father-in-law died in the year 1940, and also accepted that the registered gift deed has not been cancelled by any competent court till date, but he denied that plaintiff no.1 is the Manager of the temple plaintiff no.2, as such, it was averred that the plaintiff no.1 had no cause of action to file the present suit. The defendant specifically denied that plaintiff no.1 was the Manager of temple plaintiff no.2. He averred that