IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the need to carefully consider the application of res-judicata and the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) as per the Supreme Court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. The instant application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) is converted to a proceedings under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code.

2. The Court Fee pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2024 have been duly deposited which is clearly seen from the Office Order.

3. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Barpeta in Title Suit No. 04/2021 whereby the plaint of the suit was rejected on the ground of res-judicata i.e. being barred under Section 11 of the Code.

4. From a perusal of the plaint in Title Suit No. 04/2021, it has been alleged that in view of a default in payment of the land revenue, Government auctioned a plot of land measuring 6 Bighas which was covered by Dag No. 250 of K.P. Patta No. 35 (Old) and 155 (New) of village Khoirabari under Mouza Gobardhana Circle Barnagar in the District of Barpeta. The said land was purchased by one Sudhangshu Mohan Paramanik (since deceased). Thereupon, the plaintiffs vide three registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 753/2007, 754/2007 and 755/2007 all dated 22.08.2007 purchased the said land of 6 Bighas which have been specifically described in Schedule-A to the plaint. It has been further alleged that the principal defendants in the said suit started claiming their right over the suit land and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. As their attempts failed, a suit was filed by the principal defendants before the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 54/2008 seeking declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule-A to the plaint as well as for permanent injunction. It has been further alleged that the said suit being Title Suit No. 54/2008 was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 by the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta. Being aggrieved, the principal defendants thereupon preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 11/2011 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta. The said Title Appeal No. 11/2011 was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2011. Thereupon, the principal defendants approached this Court by filing a Regular Second Appeal being R.S.A. No. 194/2011 which is however pending disposal before this Court.

5. It has been further stated in the plaint that during the national lockdown on account of COVID restrictions, the principal defendants forcefully entered into the suit land and dispossessed the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs immediately could not approach the Court in view of the national lockdown and thereupon filed the present suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule-A to the plaint; recovery of khas possession; permanent injunction etc.

6. The record reveals that the defendants have filed their written statement in the said suit. An application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Regular Second Appeal is presently pending before this Court. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 had rejected the plaint as being barred by principles of res-judicata.

7. This Court has duly heard Mr. N.N. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. A.R. Sikdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondents except Respondent No. 2. The submissions of the learned counsels have also been duly taken note of.

8. It is well settled that the power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code are required to be directly adhered to. At the same time, it is also relevant to take note of that under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, a duty was also cast upon the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of act