Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Indermeet Kaur, J.
Vinod Kumar Singh & Ors. —Plaintiffs
versus
Devraj Singh & Ors. —Defendants
CS(OS) No.1809 of 2006
Decided on 7.4.2015
(B) Civil Procedure code 1908, Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11- Rejection of plaint on the ground of Res Judicata issue of partition- Already decided finally between the parties in earlier suit- Second Suit of partition of the same land, held will not be maintainable- The Plea that at the time of earlier suit some of the parties were minor and that the earlier decision was unfair and unjustified, cannot be accepted to allow the second suit- The plaint was rightly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 28 to 30 and 32)
Facts of the case
where application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a suit for partition seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that issue of partition had earlier been decided between the parties and that the suit was barred under the principle of res judicata u/s 11 CPC. In the second suit the parties were same and the property was same. The suit was filed by legal heirs of the deceased who was party to the earlier suit. The court rejected the plaint observing that the averments made in their plaint, were clearly covered in the previous suit and the parties were bound by the decision in the earlier case.
Findings of the Court
This statutory provision contains the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment and it operates as bar to trial of a suit or issue if the matter in the previous suit between the same parties litigating under the same trial in a Court competent to try the subsequent suit in which such an issue has been raised. This doctrine is based on public interest. The object of this Section is to confer a finality of a former decision arrived at by the competent Court, no party can thereafter be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. The superior Courts have time and again held that to apply the principle of res judicata, Courts must first determine the case of the parties as put forward by them in their respective pleadings of the previous suit and then to find out what has been decided by the earlier judgment which may be operate as res-judicata. During the proceeding application under Order 7 Rule 11 was also filed, with the prayer of rejection of plaint. It was found that all the parties were related to each other and issue of partition of the same land between the same parties was earlier decided on 30.05.2009. Therefore, the partition suit filed subsequently was not maintainable and the plaint was rightly objected.
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
Indermeet Kaur, J.—The present application has been filed by defendants No. 3, 4 & 6 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ seeking rejection of the plaint. Contention is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is barred under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is also barred by the principle of res-judicata. Limitation is also a hurdle in the way of the plaintiffs. On all the aforenoted grounds, the suit cannot proceed and the plaint is liable to the rejected.
2. There is no doubt to the settled legal proposition that to deal with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code it is the averments which are made in the plaint and the documents annexed along with the plaint which alone have to be adhered to and the defence sought to the set up by the defendant is not material for dealing with such an application.
3. Record discloses that
(i) Shiv Sheodan Singh was the owner of certain lands in village Rithala, Rohini. Pursuant to an Award which was passed in 1980-1980, a portion of his land was acquired and compensation was received.
(ii) Sheodan Singh had two sons i.e. Prithi Singh and Shivraj Singh. Prithi Singh died in 1949. Shivraj Singh died in 1948.
(iii) Prithi Singh left behind three sons Jai Pal Singh, Mahendra Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh. Chandra Pal Singh died issueless. Jai Pal Singh died in 2007. He left behind sons and grandsons. Mahendra Pal Singh has been arrayed as defendant No. 7 in the present suit.
(iv) Shivraj Singh left behind two sons namely Ran Singh and Ami Singh. Ran Singh died in 1999. Ami Singh died in 1996. Both Ran Singh and Ami Singh left three sons each.
4. The pedigree chart showing the descendants of Sheodan Singh has been detailed in the plaint.
5. The plaint discloses that
(1) CS (OS) No.1299/1985 was filed by Ran Singh and Ami Singh (sons of Shivraj Singh). This was a suit for permanent injunction. The defendants were Mahendra Pal Singh, Jai Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh (the three sons of Prithi Singh). The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of khasras No. 193, 208, 209 & 210 of the land located in village Rithala. An ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs which was subsequently set aside. The suit stood abated on 09.04.2001. Appeal against this order was dismissed on 29.01.2007. This order has become final.
(2) CS (OS) No. 1159/2001 was thereafter filed by Mahendra Pal Singh, Jai Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh (claiming through Prithi Singh). This was a suit for partition and possession. The properties involved in this suit were the same i.e. khasras No. 189, 190 193, 208, 209, 210 & 211 of village Rithala. The defendants in this suit were three sons of Ran Singh and three sons of Ami Singh (claiming through Shivraj Singh).
6. The fate of CS (OS No. 1159/2001 was that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed by the defendants. The plaint stood rejected on 30.05.2009. This was a speaking order. There were two reasons for rejection of the plaint. The first was that there was no cause of action and the second ground was that the suit was barred by limitation. This order has since become final. It was not challenged.
7. The position at law is that the rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code.
8. Section 2 (2) reads as under:-
2. Definitions.
In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within 1[* * *] section 144, but shall not include-(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or
(b) any o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
