IMPORTANT POINT
The Court established that res judicata cannot be determined solely from the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC; prior judgments and pleadings must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Anil Rinliana Malhotra, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. The appellant, herein, by way of instituting the present appeal, has assailed the order, dated 27.03.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl District, Aizawl, in CMA 74/2022, along with the order, dated 27.03.2023, passed in Civil Suit No. 79/2021.

3. The appellant, herein, had instituted a Title Suit No. 07/1998, for a declaration that LSC No. AZL-1383/1994, issued in the name of respondent No. 6, herein, was void ab initio as it had the effect of encroaching upon the LSC No. AZL-555/1985 issued to the appellant, herein. The said Title Suit No. 07/1998, on contest, was decided by the learned trial Court, on 19.04.2007, dismissing the said suit as preferred by the appellant, herein. Thereafter, the appellant had instituted Regular First Appeal being RFA No. 08/2007, presenting a challenge to the judgment & order, dated 19.04.2007, passed by the learned trial Court in Title Suit No. 07/1998, before the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl, Mizoram. The said appeal was disposed of by vide judgment, dated 24.09.2010, interfering with the judgment of the learned trial Court, impugned, therein.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 6 approached this Court by way of instituting a Regular Second Appeal being RSA No. 08/2010. This Court, vide order, dated 12.05.2011, proceeded to dispose of the said appeal, by interfering with the the order passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl, Mizoram, in Regular First Appeal No. 08/2007, and remanded back the matter to the learned lower appellate Court for disposal in accordance with law. On the said Regular First Appeal No. 08/2007 being restored to the file of the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl; the same was considered and disposed of vide order, dated 24.07.2014, by upholding the judgment & order of the learned trial Court.

5. The present appellant, thereafter, has instituted the Civil Suit No. 79/2021, before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl District, Aizawl, seeking an enforcement of the order, dated 24.03.1992, passed by the respondent No. 3, herein, for location transfer of the LSC No. Azl-555/1985, issued to the appellant, herein, and also for a direction to the private respondents No. 4 & 5, herein, to submits the original LSC No. Azl-555/1985, to the State respondents for compliance of the said order, dated 24.03.1992.

6. The respondent No. 6, herein, instituted an application being CMA No. 74/2022, in Civil Suit No. 79/2021, invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for rejection of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 79/2021. The learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl District, Aizawl, on consideration of the issue as arising in CMA No. 74/2022, proceeded vide order, dated 27.03.2023, to dispose of the said application by holding the Civil Suit No. 79/2021, to be barred by the law of res judicata and accordingly; liable, to be rejected. The plaint in Civil Suit No. 79/2021, thus, came to be rejected. Consequently, the learned trial Court proceeded to pass an order, dated 27.03.2023, in Civil Suit No. 79/2021, disposing of the same on account of rejection of the plaint on the ground that the said suit was barred by the principle of res judicata.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present appeal.

8. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have reiterated the facts as noticed hereinabove and have made their respective submissions in the matter.

9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

10. At the outset, it is to be noted that as far