Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1111
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Raju Kashyap and others - Petitioners
Versus
Smt Archana Jain – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 5609 of 2026
Decided On : 04-08-2026
For the Petitioner: Ashutosh Ganguli, Masoom Alam
For the Respondent: Brij Raj
In Small Causes Court proceedings, while formal settlement of issues is excluded by Order L Rule 1 CPC, the court must still determine "points for determination" under Order XX Rule 4(1) CPC. A plea of res judicata, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue unless based on undisputed facts.
Headnote:(A) Small Causes Court - Settlement of Issues - Order L Rule 1(a)(iii) CPC excludes the formal procedure of framing issues under Order XIV, but Order XX Rule 4(1) CPC requires the court to identify "points for determination" to ensure judicial adjudication of controversies. (Para 16, 20)
(B) Res Judicata - Preliminary Issue - A plea of res judicata under Section 11 CPC typically involves mixed questions of law and fact; such pleas cannot be decided as preliminary issues unless they turn exclusively on admitted facts or undisputed material. (Para 31, 32)
(C) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 - Interference by the High Court is warranted only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error; the decision to determine a plea at the threshold or during final adjudication is generally within the procedural discretion of the trial court. (Para 39, 41)
Issues: Whether a plea of res judicata can be insisted upon as a matter of right to be determined as a preliminary issue in proceedings before a Court of Small Causes.
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted questioning the legality of the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur in SCC Suit No.3 of 2023, whereby Application No.43-G preferred by the petitioners-defendants under Order XIV Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking framing and adjudication of the plea of res judicata as a preliminary issue, has been rejected.
3. The dispute relates to premises bearing Nagar Panchayat House No.667, Mohalla Kothiwala, Post Chilkana, Tehsil Sadar, District Saharanpur. According to the petitioners, they were the original owners of the property and had, in the year 2014, borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the respondent's husband, intending to secure the transaction by creation of a mortgage. It is alleged that, instead of a mortgage deed, a sale deed dated 23.09.2014 came to be executed by obtaining their thumb impressions without disclosing the true nature of the document. Challenging the validity of the said transaction, the petitioners instituted Original Suit No. 640 of 2015 seeking a declaration that the sale deed is void and inoperative.
4. It is further the case of the petitioners that, subsequent to the execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the respondent's issued a notice asserting the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and instituted SCC Suit No.37 of 2015 seeking their eviction from the premises. In the said suit, it was specifically pleaded that the property stood in the name of the present respondent and that the proceedings were being prosecuted by her husband solely in the capacity of her constituted attorney. Upon adjudication of the issues relating, inter alia, to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the validity of the notice and the maintainability of the suit, the Court of Small Causes, by judgment dated 19.08.2023, dismissed the suit.
5. Thereafter, the respondent herself issued a fresh notice dated 28.08.2023 and instituted the present SCC Suit No.3 of 2023 seeking eviction of the petitioners, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. In their written statement, the petitioners specifically pleaded that the subsequent suit is barred by the principle of res judicata, contending that the earlier proceedings had been instituted by the respondent's husband as her constituted attorney and that the issues sought to be reagitated in the present proceedings had already attained finality by virtue of the judgment dated 19.08.2023.
6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed Application No. 43-C under Order XIV Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC praying that the plea of res judicata be framed and adjudicated as a preliminary issue. It was asserted that, although an objection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had earlier been raised, the plea of res judicata required an independent determination on the basis of the pleadings and judgment rendered in the earlier proceedings and, if upheld, would render further trial unnecessary.
7. The application was opposed by the respondent, who contended that proceedings before the Court of Small Causes are summary in nature and, by virtue of Order L Rule 1 CPC, the provisions relating to framing of issues contained in Order XIV are inapplicable. It was further pleaded that the plea of res judicata raises a mixed question of law and fact requiring appreciation of the record of the earlier proceedings and, therefore, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. According to the respondent, the application was merely intended to protract the proceedings.
8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court rejected Application No.43-C by the impugned order dated 16.01.2026, holding that, in view of Order L Rule 1 C
