The rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 must consider substantive issues and cannot be based solely on procedural grounds if differing issues are raised in subsequent petitions.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner (defendant in the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri) praying for setting aside the impugned order of rejection to the petition dated 19.05.2025 of the petitioner (defendant) under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 passed on dated 08.07.2025 in C.S. No.462 of 2017 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant) and learned counsel for the Opposite Party (plaintiff).

3. It appears from the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed in C.S. No.462 of 2017 that, the petitioner(defendant) had filed a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of plaint of the Opposite Party(plaintiff) in C.S. No.462 of 2017 under Section 6(2) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 read with Section 3 and Section 29(2) of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 on the ground that, the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 is barred by limitation.

4. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri rejected to the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the petitioner (defendant) assigning the reasons that, “earlier the defendant had filed a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff in C.S. No.462 of 2017, but, the said petition under Order-7, Rule- 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant was rejected on dated 06.05.2023,. For which, this 2^nd petition of the defendant (petitioner) under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff on similar grounds is not entertainable.”

5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels of both the sides fairly conceded that, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant for rejection of plaint was not on the similar ground with the 2^nd petition of the defendant under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. Because, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant for rejection of plaint was on the ground of RES JUDICATA as per Section 11 of the C.P.C., but its next petition, in which, the impugned order has been passed was on the ground of LIMITATION.

When, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant(petitioner in this revision) was not on the similar ground with 2^nd petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., of the defendant, then at this juncture, the rejection to the 2^nd petition under Order-7, Rule- 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant(petitioner) by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri in C.S. No.462 of 2017 through the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 assigning the reason that, the earlier petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant was on similar ground with the 2^nd petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the defendant cannot be sustainable under law.

For which, the impugned dated 08.07.2025 passed in C.S. No.462 of 2017 by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri is liable to be set aside.

6. The suit between the parties vide C.S. No.462 of 2017 is of the year 2017.

In the meantime, eight years have already been passed.

The 2^nd petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. in respect of the impugned order was passed, the same was filed by the defendant on dated 19.05.2025.

It is the submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides that, till yet, written statement has not been filed by the defendant in the suit vide C.S. No.462 of 2017.

When eight years have already been passed in the meanwhile