Summary
The Court upheld refusal to reject a property suit as barred by res judicata under Order VII Rule 11(d). That inquiry is confined to the plaint, whereas the asserted bar required examination of the earlier suit’s pleadings, issues and judgment. The plaint disclosed the pending earlier litigation and did not itself establish the bar. The Court left the substantive res judicata question open, permitted a maintainability plea and directed consideration of a preliminary issue, with expedited adjudication of the suit.
Issues
- Whether the asserted res judicata bar justified rejection on the plaint alone.
- Whether the defendant could raise maintainability through a preliminary issue despite failure of the rejection application.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Res judicata requiring examination of the former pleadings, issues and decision could not be determined in a plaint-only rejection inquiry. The substantive plea remained open. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Held
- For rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d), the legal bar must appear from the plaint. The defendant’s written statement and other evidence cannot supply it. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 19, 20)
- Res judicata requires identity of the relevant issues and parties or privies litigating under the same title, and a final decision by a competent court. Establishing those matters requires the earlier pleadings, issues and judgment, beyond this rejection inquiry. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 20)
- The plaint acknowledged the earlier suit, which remained undecided when the later suit was instituted. On its face it did not establish res judicata, and the courts below correctly refused rejection without examining the external record. (¶ 21)
- No opinion was expressed on the ultimate res judicata bar. The appellant could raise maintainability; the trial court was to consider framing a preliminary issue under Order XIV and, if framed, decide it within three months of its being raised. Final adjudication was directed by 31 March 2022. The appeal was dismissed without costs. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; rejection application dismissed, substantive res judicata plea left open, with liberty to raise maintainability and directions for expedited adjudication.