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 beyond this procedural stage.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and set aside the order dated 09/05/2024 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Katghora District- Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.96-A/2019 by which the application Under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed, in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were defendant Nos. 1 to 12, and the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5 were the plaintiffs, while non-applicant No. 6 was defendant No. 13 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Katghora against the defendants concerning the lands mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint situated at Village Putwa, P.H. No. 30, R.I. Circle Podi Uproda, District Korba (C.G.), and Village Bankheta, P.H. No. 30, R.I. Circle Podi Uproda, District Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land" for brevity). The suit land originally belonged to Kushal Singh, and the plaintiffs are the descendants of Kushal Singh. The plaintiffs belong to the Tanwar caste, and they are not governed by Hindu Law but by their customary practices, wherein a daughter has no right over ancestral property. After the death of Kushal Singh, the male members of the family partitioned the property and are in possession of their respective shares. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the defendants, in collusion with the revenue authorities, got their names mutated in the revenue records concerning the suit land. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the present civil suit. It is pertinent to mention that prior to filing the present civil suit, the plaintiffs had instituted Civil Suit No. 19- A/2012 (renumbered as 35-A/2014) before the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), against the same defendants concerning the same lands. In the said previous suit, the defendants had filed their written statements, and the Trial Court had also framed issues. However, after the framing of issues, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking withdrawal of the said civil suit. The defendants had filed their reply to the said application. Pursuant to the application filed under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, the previous Civil Suit No. 19-A/2012 (renumbered as 35-A/2014) was permitted to be withdrawn on 30.10.2019 by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). Since the plaintiffs had previously filed a civil suit concerning the same lands and against the same defendants, the present suit was alleged to be barred in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC. Accordingly, an application was filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Upon receiving the said application, the plaintiffs filed their reply denying all the averments of the defendants and contended that the suit was maintainable. The learned Trial Court, after hearing submissions from both sides, dismissed the application filed by defendant No. 1 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC vide its order dated 09.05.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the appl