1. Suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction — Application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of res judicata. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1592
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
G. Sankarabushanam and others – Appellant
Versus
E. Dhavamani and others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4962 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22091 of 2023)
Decided on : 25-03-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Ms. Nina Nariman, Advocate, Mr. Ajith Williyam S, Advocate, Mr. Samarth Suri, Advocate, Mr. B Karunakaran, Advocate, Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advocate, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Advocate and Mr. K. Sriram, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Advocate Appeared:
Ms. Nina Nariman, Advocate, Mr. Ajith Williyam S, Advocate, Mr. Samarth Suri, Advocate, Mr. B Karunakaran, Advocate, Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advocate, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Advocate and Mr. K. Sriram, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The Supreme Court held that where a plaint is sought to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the grounds of res judicata, the court should treat the objection as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2, allowing evidence to be recorded before deciding maintainability.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Res judicata - The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of certain properties which was rejected based on the principle of res judicata and the decision of previous litigation. The Division Bench's order was set aside, restoring the learned Single Judge's dismissal of the application to reject the plaint. (Paras 3, 4, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed a suit claiming ownership of properties against certain respondents, which was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 for being barred by res judicata due to earlier litigation on the same subject matter.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the issue of res judicata needed proper consideration and evidence before outright rejection of the plaint. The learned Single Judge’s original dismissal was therefore restored.
Issues: The key issue was whether the current suit was maintainable or barred by res judicata based on previous suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that objections based on res judicata should require evidentiary support and be addressed as a preliminary issue before the suit is dismissed, thus restoring the plaint for trial.
Result: The appeal is disposed of in the terms that the learned Single Judge's order is restored, and the application for rejection of the plaint is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC based on res judicata without recording evidence on the matter. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Objections regarding res judicata under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC should be considered as a preliminary issue by letting in evidence. (Para 12 )
4. Rejection of a plaint on the basis of res judicata under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC requires the issue to be considered as a preliminary issue via evidence. (Para 12 )
5. Order of Division Bench set aside — Suit restored — Application for rejection of plaint dismissed — Trial court directed to treat res judicata as a preliminary issue. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC based on res judicata without recording evidence?
The court held that when a party seeks rejection of a plaint on the basis of res judicata under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, the objection should be considered as a preliminary issue by letting in evidence. (Para 12 )
7. Under which provision can a court raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of a suit?
A court can raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of a suit in the context of Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, record evidence on the issue, and then provide a finding. (Para 14 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that appellants herein filed the Civil Suit No. 326 of 2021 before the High Court of Madras seeking the following prayers:
"a) to declare that the 1st Plaintiffs is the absolute owner of Suit B Schedule Property;
b) to declare the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of Suit C Schedule Property and direct the Defendants 7,9,10,11 & 16 to hand over and deliver vacant possession of the Suit C Schedule Property to the plaintiffs;
c) to declare the Decree passed in O.S.No.4747 of 1977 on 12.09.2007 by the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, does not pertain and bind to the Properties comprised in T.S.No.71/1, morefully described in the Schedule A comprised of B & C hereunder;
d) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/s, their men, agents, servants representatives or any one claiming through him/her/them or in trust for him/her/them, from in any manner distributing plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule B & C Property;
e) for the costs of the suit; and
f) to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.'
3. The respondents herein filed an Application No. 4115 of 2021 in C.S. No.326 of 2021 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') on the ground that the issues involved are already decided in earlier rounds of litigation and the suit is therefore barred by res judicata. By order dated 23.03.2022, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application filed by the respondents on the ground that under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to only look into the averments in the plaint and not the defence taken by the defendants. The High Court observed that since the plaint discloses a cause of action, it dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
4. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court by filing OSA No.230 of 2022. By impugned order dated 28.09.2022, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereby, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was allowed, on the ground that the property claimed by the appellants was already decided in earlier rounds of litigation and the decree obtained in the earlier round of litigation had attained finality. Hence, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Application No.4115/2021 in CS No.326/2021.
7. She submitted that the application filed by the defendant(s) for seeking rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, in the original side appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the said order and consequently, the plaint filed by the appellant(s) herein has been rejected on that ground that it is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for the reason that the plaint is hit by the principle of res judicata.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that if the principle of res judicata was to apply to the plaint and consequently, the suit was not maintainable, then it was necessary that evidence be let in on that aspect of the matter. In support of her submission, she placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat , (2021) 9 SCC 99 and order dated 12.09.2023 passed in the case of Keshav Sood vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
