Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Wonder Cement Limited (M/s.) v. Rameshwar Pratap Singh Dead Thr. LRs. & Others
Civil Revision No. 596 of 2022 (Indore); Decided on 25.1.2023
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 11 and O. 7 R. 11 -- res judicata -- writ petition dismissed on merits -- writ appeal withdrawn -- review petition disposed of holding that no clarification is required in writ appellate Court's order -- order passed in writ petition would certainly operate as res judicata -- party would be precluded from filing civil suit seeking same relief -- suit barred by principle of res judicata. (2008) 11 SCC 753, (1965) 2 SCR 547, (1968) 2 SCR 887, (2004) 8 SCC 724 and (2008) 8 SCC 65 followed. [Paras 20 & 24
(2) Doctrine of Merger -- direction to decide matter in accordance with law -- means that all provisions of law would be applicable -- it cannot be said that any particular provision of law would not be applicable in light of order passed -- order passed by writ Court not reversed on merits -- writ appeal withdrawn -- review petition disposed of holding that no clarification is required in writ appellate Court's order -- doctrine of merger not applicable -- order passed by writ Court on merits would still survive -- mere liberty sought in writ appeal would not have effect of undoing order passed by writ Court on merits -- impugned order dismissing application under O. 7 R. 11 of CPC filed in subsequent suit for same relief cannot be sustained as it curtails right of defendant to raise ground under O. 7 R. 11 of CPC on basis of orders passed in writ appeal and review petition. (2004) 8 SCC 724 and (2008) 8 SCC 65 followed.
[Paras 22 & 23
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 11 and O. 7 R. 11 -- res judicata and doctrine of merger -- direction to decide matter in accordance with law -- means that all provisions of law would be applicable -- it cannot be said that any particular provision of law would not be applicable in light of order passed -- order passed by writ Court not reversed on merits -- writ appeal withdrawn -- review petition disposed of holding that no clarification is required in writ appellate Court's order -- doctrine of merger not applicable -- order passed by writ Court on merits would still survive -- mere liberty sought in writ appeal would not have effect of undoing order passed by writ Court on merits -- impugned order dismissing application under O. 7 R. 11 filed in subsequent suit for same relief cannot be sustained as it curtails right of defendant to raise ground under O. 7 R. 11 on basis of orders passed in writ appeal and review petition. (2004) 8 SCC 724 and (2008) 8 SCC 65 followed. [Paras 22 & 23
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 11 rFkk vk-7 fu- 11 && iwoZ fu.kZ; && fjV ;kfpdk xq.kkxq.k ij [kkfjt && fjV vihy okil ys yh xbZ && iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk dk fuiVkjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, fd;k x;k fd fjV vihy U;k;ky; dk vkns'k Li"VhÑr djuk vko';d ugha && fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k fuf'pr :i ls iwoZ fu.kZ; dh Hkk¡fr izofrZr gksxk && i{kdkj mlh vuqrks"k dh bZIlk djrs gq, flfoy okn izLrqr djus ls izokfjr gksxk && okn iwoZ fu.kZ; ds fl)kar ls oftZrA ¼2008½11 ,l lh lh 753] ¼1965½2 ,l lh vkj 547] ¼1968½2 ,l lh vkj 887] ¼2004½8 ,l lh lh 724 rFkk ¼2008½8 ,l lh lh 65 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 24
¼2½ foy; dk fl)kar && ekeyk fof/k ds vuqlkj fofuf'pr djus dk funs'k && rkRif;Zr fd fof/k ds lHkh mica/k ykxw gksaxs && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa fof/k dk dksbZ fof'k"V mica/k ykxw ugha gksxk && fjV U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k xq.kkxq.k ij myVk ugha x;k && fjV vihy okil ys yh xbZ && iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk dk fuiVkjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, fd;k x;k fd fjV vihy U;k;ky; dk vkns'k Li"VhÑr djuk vko';d ugha && foy; dk fl)kar ykxw ugha gksxk && fjV U;k;ky; }kjk xq.kkxq.k ij ikfjr vkns'k fQj Hkh vfLrRo esa jgsxk && fjV vihy esa bZfIlr Lora=rk ek= dk izHkko fjV U;k;ky; }kjk xq.kkxq.k ij ikfjr vkns'k dks feVkus ugha gksxk && mlh vuqrks"k ds fy, i'pkr~orhZ okn esa izLrqr flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-7 fu-11 ds v/khu vkosnu [kkfjt djus ds vkf{kIr vkns'k dh iqf"V ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd mlls fjV vihy vkSj iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'kksa ds vk/kkj ij flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-7 fu- 11 ds v/khu vk/kkj mBkus dk izfroknh dk vf/kdkj de gksrk gSA ¼2004½8 ,l lh lh 724 rFkk ¼2008½8 ,l lh lh 65 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ,oa 23
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 11 rFkk vk-7 fu-11 && iwoZ fu.kZ; rFkk foy; dk fl)kar && ekeyk fof/k ds vuqlkj fofuf'pr djus dk funs'k && rkRif;Zr fd fof/k ds lHkh mica/k ykxw gksaxs && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa fof/k dk dksbZ fof'k"V mica/k ykxw ugha gksxk && fjV U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k xq.kkxq.kk ij myVk ugha x;k && fjV vihy okil ys yh xbZ && iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk dk fuiVkjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, fd;k x;k fd fjV vihy U;k;ky; dk vkns'k Li"VhÑr djuk vko';d ugha && foy; dk fl)kar ykxw ugha gksxk && fjV U;k;ky; }kjk xq.kkxq.k ij ikfjr vkns'k fQj Hkh vfLrRo esa jgsxk && fjV vihy esa bZfIlr Lora=rk ek= dk izHkko fjV U;k;ky; }kjk xq.kkxq.k ij ikfjr vkns'k dks feVkus dk ugha gksxk && mlh vuqrks"k ds fy, i'pkr~orhZ okn esa izLrqr flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-7 fu-11 ds v/khu vkosnu [kkfjt djus ds vkf{kIr vkns'k dh iqf"V ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd mlls fjV vihy vkSj iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'kksa ds vk/kkj ij flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-7 fu-11 ds v/khu vk/kkj mBkus dk izfroknh dk vf/kdkj de gksrk gSA ¼2004½8 ,l lh lh 724 rFkk ¼2008½8 ,l lh lh 65 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ,oa 23
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 6.9.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Badnawar, District-Dhar (M.P.) in Civil suit No.RCS-A/39/2019, whereby the application under Order VII rule 11 r/w section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected, except with regard to the valuation and Court fees.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration, injunction and possession in respect of the agricultural lands situated at Village Kherwas, District-Dhar. In the aforesaid suit, an application under Order VII rule 11 was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 on the ground that the issues raised by the plaintiffs in the suit has already been decided by the Writ Court in W.P. No.15202/2018 dated 24.10.2018 wherein, this Court had also given an option to the plaintiffs to file a civil suit and after the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the said writ petition gave up his right to file a civil suit, the Writ Court has proceeded further and decided the matter on merits. Thus, it is submitted that the civil suit was clearly barred by the order passed by this Court as the issues have already been decided.
3. Shri V. K. Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that although the aforesaid order dated 24.10.2018 was challenged in W.A. No.192/2019, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.3.2019 with liberty to file a civil suit and thereafter, a review petition, R.P. No.554/2019 was also filed which was disposed of by this Court on 16.5.2019 further directing that the civil suit shall be decided on merits, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, in accordance with law.
4. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even though the aforesaid two orders have been passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal and in the Review petition, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Writ Court has been set aside by the Writ Appellate Court and thus, the aforesaid order passed by the Writ Court is binding on the plaintiffs and the suit is barred by the principles of Res Judicata.
5. Shri Ashok Garg, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the orders passed by the Writ appellate Court and in the review petition are binding on the Civil Court and in the review petition, this Court has clarified that the civil suit will be decided on merits, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, and in accordance with law meaning thereby, that the civil suit has to be contested on merits only and it cannot be dismissed on technical grounds.
6. Senior counsel has further submitted that the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.15202/2018 dated 24.10.2018 has already been merged in the order passed by the Writ Appellate Court and the review petition and thus, is not binding on the parties.
7. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another reported as (1977) 4 SCC 467, Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas and another reported as (2008) 11 SCC 753, Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, reported as (1965) 2 SCR 547, Union of India v. Nanak Singh reported as (1968) 2 SCR 887, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Narasimha Murthy reported as 1990 (Supp) SCC 746, Chandi Prasad and Others v. Jagdish Prasad and others, reported as (2004) 8 SCC 724, State of Kerala and Another v. Kondottyparambanmoosa and others, reported as (2008) 8 SCC 65.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the record it is found that the respondents/plaintiffs had earlier filed W.P. No.15202/2018 being aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2016, passed by the respo
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....
The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside as the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in considering the order passed by the High Court....
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.
A court must examine pleadings from both current and previous suits to determine if resjudicata applies, ensuring all relevant issues are considered.
Trial courts must adjudicate all issues in a suit, and failure to do so violates procedural requirements under CPC, necessitating remand.
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
