C.R.P.(PD)No.

961 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.4789 of 2017

1.M.Indirani
2.M.Suseela
3.S. Selvi ... Petitioners
Vs.
Ponnusamy ... Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 20.02.2017
made in I.A.No.901 of 2013 in O.S.No.1020 of 2012 on the file of I
Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj

For Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.R.Mounaswaminathan

1/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

ORDER

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)

Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order

dated 20.02.2017 made in I.A.No.901 of 2013 in O.S.No.1020 of 2012 on

the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2.The petitioners are the defendants and respondent is plaintiff in

O.S.No.1020 of 2012 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court,

Salem. The respondent filed the said suit for declaration that the sale deed

dated 05.12.2005 executed by the petitioners 2 and 3 in favour of 1st

petitioner as null and void, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

The 1st petitioner filed written statement on 18.06.2013. Originally, the 1st

petitioner filed I.A.No.901 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C to

reject the plaint and subsequently, the petitioners 2 and 3 were also

impleaded as petitioners 2 and 3.

2/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

3.According to the petitioners, the suit is barred by principles of res

judicata as earlier suits filed by the respondent were dismissed after full-

fledged trial and the respondent is re-litigating the issue already decided.

4.The respondent filed counter affidavit, denied all the averments

made in the affidavit filed in support of the above I.A. and stated that in

the earlier suits, the title of the parties was not decided. Those suits were

filed only for easementary right and injunction. The petitioners have not

specifically mentioned under which clause of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.,

they are seeking rejection of plaint. The respondent has mentioned

necessary averments and cause of action to maintain the suit in the plaint

and prayed for dismissal of the said I.A.

5. The learned Judge considering the averments made in the plaint,

affidavit, counter affidavit and the judgments relied on by the parties,

dismissed the I.A. holding that in an application filed under Order VII

3/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

Rule 11 of C.P.C., the averments made in the plaint and the documents

relied on by the plaintiff alone can be looked into and the averments made

in the affidavit and counter affidavit filed in support of the application are

not relevant to decide the suit. The learned Judge has also held that

question of res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be

decided only based on the evidence let in by the parties in the trial.

6.Against the said fair and decretal order dated 20.02.2017 made in

I.A.No.901 of 2013 in O.S.No.1020 of 2012, the petitioners have come

out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that

the impugned order of the learned Judge is contrary to the provisions of

Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 11 and Section 151 of Civil

Procedure Code. The Learned Judge failed to consider that this is the third

round of litigation by suppression of material facts by the respondent. The

present suit is barred by principles of res judicata. Originally, the suit

property belonged to one Ayyammal, who sold the property to the

4/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

petitioners 2 and 3 by sale deed dated 02.05.1983. At the instigation of

the respondent, the said sale deed was cancelled on 03.06.1983. Later on,

the respondent and his brothers purchased the suit property by sale deed

dated 13.06.1983. The respondent filed three suits in respect of the suit

property and after full-fledged trial, the suits were dismissed. The First

Appeal and Second Appeal filed by the respondent were also dismissed. In

view of the earlier judgments, the present suit is barred by res judicata.

The present suit is nothing but re-litigation of already decided issue. The

respondent suppressing the material fact of dismissal of the suit in

O.S.No.1260 of 1983 in respect of the very same property and dismissal of

First Appeal in A.S.No.209 of 1991, filed the present suit in O.S.No.1020

of 2012. In the earlier suit, it has been held that the respondent has no

right, title or interest over the suit property. Exhibits 1 to 8 marked by the

petitioners in I.A.No.901 of 2013 will clearly reveal that the respondent is

re-litigating the issue and prayed for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

7(i).In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners relied on the following judgments:

5/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

(i) (1977) 4 SCC 467 (T.Arivandandam vs. T.V.Satyapal and

another);

“5.We have not the slightest hesitation in

condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the
process of the Court repeatedly and unrepentantly
resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the
judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the
suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court,
Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law
in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember
that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the
plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion
of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing
by examining the party searchingly under Order X,
C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible
law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus
litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. .. ..”

6/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

(ii) (2004) 3 SCC 137 (Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs.

Assistant Charity Commissioner and others);

“11.In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal and Ors. (1998 (2) SCC 70) it was held that the
basic question to be decided while dealing with an
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is
whether a real cause of action has been set out in the
plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with
a view to get out of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

12.The trial Court must remember that if on a

meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the
power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care
to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing
by examining the party searchingly under Order X of the
Code.
.. ..

7/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

.. ..
17. .. .. The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits.
Therefore, Order X of the Code is a tool in the hands of
the Courts by resorting to which and by a searching
examination of the party, in case the Court is prima facie
of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the
Court, in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible
litigation, the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code can be exercised.”

(iii) (1998) 3 SCC 573 (K.K.Modi vs. K.N.Modi and others)

“44.One of the examples cited as an abuse of the

process of Court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the
process of the Court and contrary to justice and public
policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has
already been tried and decided earlier against him. The
reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata.
But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also
amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A
proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a
spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a

8/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of

the Court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court
especially where the proceedings are absolutely
groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such
proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the
public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it
is a matter of the Courts' discretion whether such
proceedings should be stopped or not; and this
discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is
a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and
exercised only in special cases. The Court should also
be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit
succeeding.”

8.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondent contended that in the earlier suits, the title of the parties was

not an issue. Earlier three suits were filed only for easementary right and

injunction. The respondent in paragraph 6 of the plaint and cause of action

portion made averments with regard to earlier suits and cause of action for

the present suit. The respondent has not suppressed any materials and not

9/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

played fraud on the Court. In an application filed under Order VII Rule 11

of C.P.C., the averments made in the affidavit, written statement and

documents relied on by the defendant cannot be considered to decide the

issue. Only the averments made in the plaint and documents relied on by

the plaintiff alone can be considered to decide the I.A. filed under Order

VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. The learned Judge

considering all the materials and provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

properly, dismissed I.A. by giving valid reason. There is no reason to

interfere with the order of the learned Judge and prayed for dismissal of

the Civil Revision Petition.

8(i).In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent relied on the following judgments:

(i) 2021 SCC Online SC 565 [Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs.

Hemant Vithal Kamat and others]:

“17.Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the

plaint shall be rejected “where the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”. Hence,

10/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law,

it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be
construed. The Court while deciding such an application
must have due regard only to the statements in the
plaint. Whether the suit is barred by any law must be
determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not
open to decide the issue on the basis of any other
material including the written statement in the case.
Before proceeding to refer to precedents on the
interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, we find it
imperative to refer to Section 11 of CPC which defines
res judicata:

“11. Res judicata.—No Court shall try any suit or issue in

which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been
directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the
same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them
claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try
such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been
subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by
such Court.”

18.Section 11 of the CPC enunciates the rule of

res judicata : a court shall not try any suit or issue in
which the matter that is directly in issue has been

11/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

directly or indirectly heard and decided in a ‘former

suit’. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudicating on the
issue of res judicata it is necessary that the same issue
(that is raised in the suit) has been adjudicated in the
former suit. It is necessary that we refer to the exercise
taken up by this Court while adjudicating on res
judicata, before referring to res judicata as a ground for
rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. Justice R
C Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice then was),
speaking for a two Judge bench in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C.
Saravanabava (2004) 1 SCC 551 discussed the plea of
res judicata and the particulars that would be required to
prove the plea. The court held that it is necessary to
refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the
judgment of the ‘former suit’ while adjudicating on the
plea of res judicata:

“11. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the

root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent
suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public
policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one
should be vexed twice for the same cause.

13. Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be

substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings,
issues and judgment in the previous case. Maybe, in a given

12/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof

of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive
or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the
issues which may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed
out in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa [(1976) 4
SCC 780] the basic method to decide the question of res
judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put
forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit
and then to find out as to what had been decided by the
judgment which operates as res judicata. It is risky to
speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of
recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned
in the judgment. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v.
Bhooralal [AIR 1964 SC 1810 : (1964) 7 SCR 831] placing on
a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under
Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that
proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create
the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically
founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two
suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which
raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous
suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere
speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were
the facts stated in the previous pleadings. Their Lordships of
the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for
India in Council [(1887-88) 15 IA 186 : ILR 16 Cal 173]
pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot be
determined without ascertaining what were the matters in
issue in the previous suit and what was heard and decided.
Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into

13/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous

suit.”

19.At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to

the decisions that particularly deal with the question
whether res judicata can be the basis or ground for
rejection of the plaint. In Kamala v. KT Eshwara Sa
(2008) 12 SCC 661, the Trial Judge had allowed an
application for rejection of the plaint in a suit for
partition and this was affirmed by the High Court.
Justice S. B. Sinha speaking for the two judge bench
examined the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC
and observed:

“21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited

application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under
any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the
averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7
Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in
a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may
be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-
clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived
at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order
7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint.
For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or
subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court

14/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

can be invoked at different stages and under different

provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one,
Order 14 Rule 2 is another.

22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d)

of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The
issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the
parties would not be within the realm of the court at that
stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order
under the said provision.”

20.The Court further held:

“23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted,
would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code.
The question involving a mixed question of law and fact
which may require not only examination of the plaint but
also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit
may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final
hearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that
stage.

24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in

the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is
another thing to say that although the same discloses a
cause of action, the same is barred by a law.
25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by
various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then
the broad principle which can be culled out therefrom is that
the court at that stage would not consider any evidence or
enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event,

15/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law,

meaning thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application
for rejection of plaint should be entertained.”

.. ..
.. ..
26.On a perusal of the above authorities, the
guiding principles for deciding an application under
Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized 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 defense 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 (i) the ‘previous suit’ is
decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were
directly and substantially in 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;
and

16/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

(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.”
(ii) 2010 (1) LW 451 (Kaja Mohideen vs. Rajendran and others);

“8.According to me, as rightly pointed by

Mr.G.Sridharan, learned counsel for the respondents,
that the question of res judicata is a mixed question of
law and fact and that cannot be decided in an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. ..
.. ”

9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as

the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the

materials on record.

10.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the

petitioners have filed the present I.A.No.901 of 2013 under Order VII

Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint filed by the respondent. According to

the petitioners, the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata and the

17/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

respondent is re-litigating the issue for third time. The issue in the present

suit is already decided in earlier three suits for declaration and injunction

in O.S.Nos.1260 of 1983, 800 of 1999 and 742 of 2001. All the three

suits filed by the respondent were dismissed and First Appeal and Second

Appeal were also dismissed. This issue has to be decided as per the

provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and the said provision is

extracted for easy reference.

Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. :

"11.Rejection of plaint.__The plaint shall be rejected in the

following cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite
stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law;

18/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of
rule 9;

[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of
the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not
be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is
satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the
requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed
by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause
grave injustice to the plaintiff.]"

11.As per Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., a plaint can be rejected,

when the defendant substantiates any one of the ingredients mentioned

therein. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has to be

decided only based on the averments made in the plaint and documents

relied on by the plaintiff. The averments made in the plaint have to be

taken to be correct and true and then only, the provision of Rule 11 can be

applied to find out whether plaint can be rejected in any one of the

conditions enumerated in the said provision. The averments made in the

19/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

written statement, affidavit filed and documents filed by the defendant

cannot be taken into account to decide the issue of rejection of plaint.

12.In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff has mentioned that

earlier suits filed by him except O.S.No.1260 of 1983 in paragraph 6 of the

plaint and in cause of action paragraph, the respondent has stated the cause

of action that has arisen for filing of present suit. The petitioners have not

disputed the averments made by the respondent. On the other hand, their

case is that the title of the suit property was already decided in the earlier

suits and the present suit is barred by principles of res judicata. The

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed judgments delivered in

earlier suits and referred extensively at the time of arguments. Even

though the said documents are not relevant to decide the issue of rejection

of plaint, the learned counsel for the petitioners extensively referred the

same.

13.It is seen from the judgments that the respondent has not sought

20/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

for any declaration of title in the above suits. In the earlier suits, the

respondent sought for only the relief of easementary right and permanent

injunction. Further the 1st petitioner is not a party to the earlier suits. The

question of res judicata cannot be decided based on the averments made

in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed to reject the plaint.

The petitioners have to let in evidence during trial to prove that the present

suit is hit by the principles of res judicata. The bar claimed under the

principles of res judicata is mixed question of law and fact and the same

can be decided only by appreciating the evidence let in during the trial.

Further this issue was already decided by the Madurai Bench of this Court

in the earlier C.R.P. in the judgment reported in 2010 (1) LW 451 cited

supra, wherein this Court in paragraph 8, it has been held as follows:

“8.According to me, as rightly pointed by

Mr.G.Sridharan, learned Counsel for the respondents,
that the question of res judicata is a mixed question of
law and fact and that cannot be decided in an application
under Order 7 and Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the
respondents herein filed E.A.No.241 of 2006 under

21/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

Order 21, Rule 97, 101 of the Civil Procedure Code, as

rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the revision
petitioner, the suit cannot be maintained as the
respondents herein have invoked the jurisdiction of the
Execution Court by filing the application under Order
21, Rules 97, 101 of the Civil Procedure Code. As per
Order 21, Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code, all
questions including questions relating to right, title or
interest in the property arising between the parties to the
proceedings on an application under Order 21, Rule 97
or Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, or the
representatives to the adjudication of the application,
shall be determined by the Court dealing with an
application and not by a separate suit. In this case, the
respondents herein are the legal representatives of the
tenant in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2004, against whom, the
order of eviction was obtained. They have also filed the
application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil
Procedure Code. Therefore, when the parties have
invoked the provisions of Order 21, Rule 97, 101 of the
Civil Procedure Code, irrespective of the fact that the
suit filed by them at earlier point of time, the suit cannot
be proceeded with and all the questions relating to right

22/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

or title of the parties have to be decided only in the

application filed under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil
Procedure Code. This position has been made clear in
the judgment reported in 1998-2-L.W. 418 in Shreenath
and another Vs. Rajesh and Others. In the said
judgment, the order of the Honourable Supreme Court
quoting the passage in the judgment reported in 1995(1)
SCC 242, in Noorduddin Vs. Dr.K.L.Anand, wherein it
is held as follows:

"Para 8: Thus the scheme of the Code clearly

adumbrates that when an application has been made under
Order 21, Rule 97, the Court is enjoined to adjudicate upon
the right, title and interest claimed in the property arising
between the parties to a proceeding or between the decree
holder and the person claiming independent right, title or
interest in the immovable property and an order in that
behalf be made. The determination shall be conclusive
between the parties as if it was a decree subject to right of
appeal and not a matter to be agitated by a separate suit. In
other words, no other proceedings were allowed to be
taken. It has to be remembered that preceding Civil
Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976, right of suit under
Order 21, Rule 103 of 1908 Code was available which has
been now taken away. By necessary implication, the
legislature relegated the parties to an adjudication of right,

23/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

title or interest in the immovable property under execution

and finality Code appears to be to put an end to the
protraction of the execution and to shorten the litigation
between the parties or persons claiming right, title and
interest in the immovable property in execution." ”

14.The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in

2021 (1) MWN (Civil) 635 (S.Thakeer Ali vs. S.M.Gutha) has also

considered this issue in paragraphs 17 and 18 and the same are extracted

hereunder:

“17.The legal principle, which can be culled out

from the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court as to the scope of application of Order
VII, Rule 11 are to the effect that if on a meaningful, not
formal, reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious
and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right
to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order
VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Disputed questions cannot be
decided at the time of considering an application filed
under Order VII, Rule 11. The power to reject a plaint
under Order VII, Rule 11 ought not to be exercised
except any clear cut case and, if there is any serious
question to be decided, then the suit has to proceed

24/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

further.

18.The power under Order VII, Rule 11 can be

exercised when the plaint is read as a whole, it does not
disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action,
which can be entertained by a Civil Court, it may be
rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11. The Court can
look into only plaint allegations and the documents
submitted by the plaintiff himself, but cannot look into
the Defendant's defence. In other words, actual or
probable Defence cannot be looked into at the stage
when an Application under Order VII, Rule 11 is
considered. To put it differently, the Court has to
scrutinise the averments/pleas in the Plaint and the pleas
taken by the Defendants in the Written Statement are
corley irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on
the Plaint averments.”

15.From the above order and judgments, it is clear that question of

res judicata cannot be decided in the application filed under Order VII

Rule 11 of C.P.C. This issue is no longer res integra.

25/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

16. The averments made in the plaint discloses cause of action for

the suit filed by the respondent. The learned Judge considering the

averments made in the plaint and the judgments relied on by the counsel

for the parties, dismissed I.A. holding that question of res judicata is a

mixed question of law and fact and application can be decided only based

on the averments made in the plaint and documents relied on by the

respondent and averments made in the affidavit and the documents filed to

reject the plaint cannot be considered in the application for rejection of

plaint. The learned Judge has given cogent and valid reason for rejection of

application. There is no error or irregularity in the order of the learned

Judge warranting interference by this Court.

17.For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition stands

dismissed. The suit is of the year 2012 and hence, the learned Judge is

directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.1020 of 2012 as expeditiously as

possible, in any event, not later than six months. No costs. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

26/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

09.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
kj

To

I Additional District Munsif

Salem.

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

Kj

27/28

http://www.judis.nic.in
 C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017

C.R.P.(PD)No.961 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.4789 of 2017

09.09.2021

28/28

http://www.judis.nic.in