Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Prem Kishore & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Brahm Prakash & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1948 of 2013
Decided on : 29-03-2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 11 – Rejection of plaint – Bar of Res Judicata – Whether suit is barred by any law must be determined from statements in plaint and it is not open to decide issue on the basis of any other material including written statement in the case – Plea of res judicata is founded on proof of certain facts and then applying law to facts so found – It is necessary that foundation for the belief must be laid in pleadings and then issue must be framed and tried – General principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, matter directly and substantially in issue in subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in former suit – Suit should have been decided on merits and decision should have attained finality. (Paras 25, 27 and 34)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 11 and Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 14(1)(a) – Rejection of eviction petition – Bar of Res Judicata – After first eviction petition was instituted, defendants therein filed their written statement denying relationship of landlord and tenant – After written statement came on record, no further evidence was led by plaintiffs – All that was on record was in form of pleadings in plaint – Power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of CPC to decide suit on merits for default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts remedy of unsuccessful party for redress – Physical presence without preparedness to co-operate for anything connected with progress of case serves no useful purpose in deciding suit on merits and it is worse than absence – Impugned judgement and decree set aside. (Paras 50, 52 and 56)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal, by special leave, is at instance of original plaintiff (landlord) of an eviction petition filed under provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 04.05.2010 in the Civil Revision Petition No. 1332 of 2002 by which High Court allowed the revision petition filed by defendant (tenant) thereby rejecting plaint under provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the eviction petition was barred by the principles of res judicata.
Only question that falls for consideration is whether High Court was justified in rejecting plaint of eviction petition on the ground that second eviction petition was barred by the principles of res judicata.
Findings of Court:
High Court committed error in taking the view that order passed by Additional Rent Controller could be said to be one passed in exercise of powers under Rule 3 of Order 17 of CPC.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The provided legal document does not explicitly state that civil courts are barred from exercising their jurisdiction. Instead, it discusses specific procedural provisions and legal principles related to the rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the application of res judicata, and the conditions under which a suit or plaint can be dismissed or rejected. The document emphasizes that courts are to decide on the basis of the statements in the plaint alone when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), and it clarifies the circumstances under which a suit may be barred by law or res judicata. However, it does not contain any language indicating that civil courts are altogether barred from trying suits or issues.
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the original plaintiff (landlord) of an eviction petition filed under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act 1958’) and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 04.05.2010 in the Civil Revision Petition No. 1332 of 2002 by which the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the defendant (tenant) thereby rejecting the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground that the eviction petition was barred by the principles of res judicata.
Factual Matrix
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summaried as under.
3. It is the case of the appellants that the respondents herein were inducted as tenants on 27.12.1987 by the father of the appellants in respect of the property bearing House No. 163 (Old No. 143) situated at Village Dhakka, Kingsway Camp, Delhi on monthly rent of Rs. 1050/- excluding the electricity, water and house tax. According to the appellants, the tenancy was for residential purpose. It is also their case that the rent was duly paid till February, 1993.
4. The father of the appellants served a demand notice dated 04.03.1996 on the respondents claiming the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 27,800/-. According to the appellants, the notice was duly served upon the respondents. However, the arrears of the rent was not cleared.
5. In such circumstances referred to above, the father of the appellants filed an eviction petition on 21.05.1996 bearing Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act 1958.
6. In the said eviction petition, the respondents filed their written statement and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.
7. It appears from the materials on record that after the written statement was filed by the respondents denying the relationship of landlord and the tenant, the plaintiffs failed to appear before the Rent Controller for the purpose of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plaintiffs were granted numerous opportunities to adduce evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The record reveals that the last such opportunity granted to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence was on 09.09.1997 and again on 01.11.1997.
8. In such circumstances referred to above, the Rent Controller proceeded to pass the following order dated 27.01.1998:-
| "27.1.1998 Present: Counsel for the Petitioner Sh. Chander Shekhar. Cl. For Petitioner submits that no witness has come today nor summoned. No ground for further adjournment. Last opportunity was granted to Petitioner on 9.9.97 & then on 1.11.97. Still the Petitioner has not cared to call witness. The PE is thus closed. Since the relationship of Landlord tenant itself is under dispute and the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence to establish this fact, I am of the opinion that there is no point in fixing the case further for RE. The petition is thus dismissed as the petitioner has failed to establish his case. File be consigned. | |
| Sd/- 27.1.1998 R. Kiran Nath RENT CONTROLLER: DELHI" | |
9. It is not in dispute that no appeal was preferred against the aforesaid order dismissing the eviction petition. During the life time of the original plaintiff, namely, Samey Singh, no fresh eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act 1958 was filed.
10. After the demise of Samey Singh (original plaintiff), the appellants herein claiming as successors in interest filed another eviction petition registered as Eviction Petition No. 136 of 2001 against the respondents herein under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act 1958 claiming inter alia arrears of rent from 01.03.1993 till the date of issuance of notice i.e. till 18.05.2001. A written statement
(1) Res Judicata – Whether suit is barred by any law must be determined from statements in plaint and it is not open to decide issue on the basis of any other material including written statement in ....
Power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of CPC to decide suit on merits for default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts remedy of unsuccessful party for redress.
The principle of res judicata does not apply if a fresh application is filed on changed circumstances, and the earlier petition was not adjudicated upon on merits.
A single co-owner can initiate eviction proceedings against a tenant without the consent of other co-owners based on agency principles, supporting the maintainability of such petitions.
A suit is maintainable despite prior withdrawal of an eviction petition if it involves distinct causes of action and statutory provisions, as clarified under CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
