Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J
Deb Kumar Banerjee, S/o Late Baidyanath Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
Pradip Kr. Mullick, S/o Late Uma Shankar Mullick – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. It is observed from the record that the appellant No. 1, namely, Deb Kumar Banerjee who is defendant No. 1 in the suit has already been substituted by order dated 07.08.2024. The name of the legal representative of the appellant No. 1 has not been incorporated in the memo of appeal. Office is directed to carry out the direction with regard to insertion of the name of legal representative of the appellant No. 1 in terms of order dated 07.08.2024. The details of the legal representative of the appellant No. 1 are as follows : -
Sudip Banerjee, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Deb Kumar Banerjee, Resident of 3, B.G. Road, Haora (M. Corp.), P.O. & P.S. Haora, District Howrah (West Bengal), Pin Code –711103.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
3. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 and 13.06.2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge-II, Giridih in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2013 reversing and setting aside the order and decree dated 16.03.2013 and 04.04.2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Giridih in Title Suit No. 61 of 2009.
4. The
The appellate court must remand a case for trial after reversing a dismissal under Order VII Rule 11, without assessing merits.
The principle of res judicata cannot serve as a basis for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC; it must be framed as a preliminary issue in trial.
An application for plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only evaluates the plaint's contents without considering the defendant's defense. Res judicata principles need comprehensive analysis bey....
Plea of res judicata cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as it requires scrutiny of prior suits' pleadings and judgments beyond plaint averments alone.
The limited scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC restricts the consideration of the defendant's defence and documents relied upon by the defendant when deciding on the rejection of the plaint.
A plaint can only be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) if it fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law, without regard to evidence or defenses raised in the written statement.
The court emphasized that res judicata requires evidence examination and cannot be solely decided at the pre-trial stage, allowing grounds to be raised in written statements.
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
