JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Correctness or otherwise of the order dated 20.12.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia, in Money Suit No. 95/2019, is put to challenge in this petition under Section 115 CPC, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 20.12.2021, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia, has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the Money Suit No. 95/2019, as barred by applicable law.

2. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as below:

“The petitioner, namely B. Fouress Private Limited and the respondent, State of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Hydro Power Development, Itanagar, entered into an agreement on 29.10.1993, in respect of Kush Mini-Hydel Project. The respondent in discharge of the aforesaid contractual obligation has paid some amount of money as consideration on 13.01.1994, 01.08.1994 and 25.08.1994. In course of execution of the said project, some dispute arose between the parties, and accordingly, the matter was referred to an Arbitral Tribunal and the Tribunal adjudicated the disputes vide Arbitral Award dated 15.02.2006, wherein, all claims and counterclaims have been adjudicated. Thereafter, the respondent instituted Money Suit being No. 95/2019, for recovery of sum of Rs. 8,98,67,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Ninety-Eight Lakhs Sixty-Seven Thousand) only, which was paid towards the supply of Electro and Mechanical (here in after E&M) Equipment, which was included in the commissioning and constructing the Kush Mini-Hydel Project. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the Money Suit No. 95/2019. But, the learned Court below, after hearing the parties, at length, dismissed the petition vide impugned order dated 20.12.2021, by holding that from the reading of the plaint, there is nothing to suggest that the same is barred by the principles of res-judicata and that admittedly, the issue of refund of cost of the E&M equipments had not been raised, heard and finally decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is further held that the issue of res-judicata cannot be decided merely by looking into the averment in the plaint while the pleading in Arbitral Tribunal has not been produced before the court.”

3. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioners approach this Court by filing the present petition on the following grounds:

(i) That, the Money Suit No. 95/2019, has been filed in respect of sum of Rs. 8,98,67,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Ninety-Eight Lakhs Sixty-Seven Thousand) only, which had allegedly been paid to the petitioner being consideration for commissioning the Kush Hydroelectric Power Project, under a contract dated 29.10.1993.

(ii) That, the respondent had allegedly paid the amounts on 13.01.1994, 01.08.1994 and 25.08.1994, which admittedly, cause of action, arose on said dates.

(iii) That, the claim made by the respondent in the Money Suit No. 95/2021, regarding the petitioner’s liability to reimburse the sum amount of Rs. 8,98,67,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Ninety-Eight Lakhs Sixty-Seven Thousand), was the subject matter of Arbitral Award dated 15.02.2006, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

(iv) That, in the arbitral proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner and the respondent had raised their claims and counterclaims with regard to the Kush Mini-Hydel Project, which admittedly forms the subject matter of Money Suit No. 95/2019.

(v) That, in the said proceedings, the parties expressly joined issues on the supplies, made by the petitioner to the respondent and payment made by the respondent to the petitioner for E&M equipment relating to the Kush Mini-Hydel Project.

(vi) That, the plain