The principle of res judicata does not apply if there is a substantial change in circumstances between previous and subsequent applications, and in the absence of proof of such change, the principle of res judicata would not bar subsequent proceedings on the same subject matter.

1. The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 14.02.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur thereby dismissing the application preferred by the applicant company under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. The applicant company was awarded the contract for construction of Hata, Fathepur, Rajpura, Silapuri, Bajna, Daguwa (SH-48) Road on BOT basis by M.P. Road Development Corporation vide order dated 10.08.2015. Thereafter, the applicant company begun with its construction activity of the road in terms of assigned scope of work. The respondent approached to the Tehsildar of Tehsil Baxwah, District Chhatarpur stating that the construction of the bridge in Darguwa-Hata Road is being carried out by the applicant without acquiring its property having description as House no.337 built over Khasra No.549/4 in Village Bajna, Tehsil Baxwah, District Chhatarpur admeasuring 0.06 Are.

3. The applicant filed its reply and stated that the permission was granted to the applicant company to carry out the construction activity by the authorities vide order dated 10.01.2017. The M.P. Road Development Corporation also filed its reply to the complaints of the respondent and stating that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to suit property is in process and the same is to be concluded. The respondent thereafter filed a civil suit no.1-A/2017 before the Civil Court Bijawar, District Chhatarpur for declaration of title as well as permanent injunction.

4. The applicant/defendant filed a preliminary objection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC stating that the suit is not maintainable as the jurisdiction of Civil Courts are barred for the matter pertaining to land acquisition proceedings as provided in Section 63 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as to the ‘Act of 2013’). Vide order dated 23.02.2017, the trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC observing that the applicant has not produced any material on record to show that the suit property has been acquired under the provisions of Act of 2013 and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. Thereafter, the applicant company filed written statement and reply to the application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC by the respondent, wherein the bar of jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Act of 2013 was reiterated. It was also contended that there is no irreparable loss caused to the respondent/plaintiff as the acquisition proceedings are under process and the loss can be quantified in terms of money.

5. Learned Lower Court has allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and granted injunction in favour of the respondent vide order dated 11.03.2017. Thereafter vide order dated 12.12.2017, the Land Acquisition Officer, Bijawar completed the acquisition proceedings and passed a detailed award and the compensation for suit property was also quantified and published. After passing of the award of compensation by Land Acquisition Officer, the name of M.P Road Development Corporation was mutated over the suit property. Thereafter on 07.02.2018, the applicant company filed second application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC bringing on record the award dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was specifically contended that since the suit property has been acquired by MPRDC under the Provisions of Act of 2013, therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 63 of the Act of 2013.

6. The Lower Court vide order dated 14.02.2018 has dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground of “res-judicata” stating that the objection with respect to bar of jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Act of 2013 has been considered by the Court in its earlier order dated 23