IMPORTANT POINT
A court must examine pleadings from both current and previous suits to determine if resjudicata applies, ensuring all relevant issues are considered.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The petitioners in this application are defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 in Title Suit No. 561 of 2017 pending before Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat and is aggrieved by the order dated 29-04-2022 passed by the Learned Court in rejecting the application of the petitioners which prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground of res-judicata.

2. The case of the petitioners/defendants nos. 1 to 3 may be summed up thus.

3. The defendants no. 1 to 3 in the Learned Court below filed petition for dismissal of suit on the ground of maintainability stating inter-alia as follows:

(1) The defendant no. 1 to 3 in their written statement have categorically stated that their father Bholanath Mondal during his lifetime executed two registered deed of settlement in favour of his sons, the plaintiff herein and the defendant no. 6. Jitendra Nath Mondal @ Jatin Mondal jointly filed a suit being deed no. 3309 and 3310 and the said Title Suit - 116/2002 was finally disposed of by the Ld. Court of 2nd Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat and in the said suit the present defendants were also the defendants.

(2) In the said suit the defendant Dwijendra Nath Mandal, Jitendra Nath Mondal and Tapan Mondal jointly filed written statement sometimes in the year 1996. Preciously the said suit was being no. 163 of 1995 and it was originally filed before the Ld. 3rd Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Sealdah and subsequently transferred to Ld. Court of 2nd Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) at Barasat and it was re-numbered as Title Suit 116/2002.

(3) In the written statement of the previous suit the defendant have distinctly stated regarding those such two deeds of settlement but the plaintiff falsely stated that he has came to know such alleged deed from the written statement filed by the defendant sometimes in the year 2003. The plaintiff in order to avoid limitation and in order to avoid legal bar has made such false statement. The defendants have had been possessing the entire property as it has described in their registered deed of settlement by all act of possession paying rent and taxes to the competent authority.

(4) That previously Title Suit 116/2002 was a suit for partition and subsequently the said partition suit was amended with a prayer for declaration that alleged settlement deed is illegal void and not binding. The suit of the plaintiff being Title Suit 116/2002 was dismissed on contest as such present suit regarding said nature is barred by law of resjudicata. Whenever the previous title suit decided finally regarding those such two deeds of settlement further suit in respect of said documents is not tenable.

4. The opposite party plaintiff contested the application by filing written objection.

5. By order no. 21 dated 29/04/2022 Learned Court below was pleased to dispose the petition of the defendant no. 1, 2 and 3/petitioners challenging maintainability of the suit by observing as follows:

“Upon considering the submissions made by Ld Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that the defendants have prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that earlier a suit being T.S. 116/02 had been disposed off by this court wherein the deed of settlement dated 04/04/81 was challenged as in this suit.

A plaint is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code if any of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) If it does not disclose a cause of action.

(2) If the relief claimed is undervalued and correct valuation has not been given despite the order of the Court.

(3) If the relief though claimed is properly valued but if sufficient stamp is not put in the plaint despite the order of the Court.

(4) If the suit from the statement of the plaint appears to be barred by any law.

Two more grounds were incorporated by a subsequent amendment i.e. where the plaint is not filed in the duplicate and if the plaintiff failed to comply with the p