A plea of res judicata cannot be decided at the threshold stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as the court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint and cannot consider the defendant's objections or external documents.

Order on Board

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

1. Arising out of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saja, District Bemetra in Civil Suit No. 53A/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been dismissed, which order is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Hence, the instant revision is being preferred.

2. Following prayer has been made by way of this revision:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 18/9/2025, passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saja, District Bemetra in Civil Suit No.53A/2024, in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the instant civil suit bearing No.53A/2024 before the learned Trial Court seeking declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land situated at Village Saja, P.H. No.9, R.I. Circle Saja, District Bemetra (C.G.), bearing Survey No.3553/2 admeasuring 0.10 hectare and Survey No.1686 admeasuring 0.03 hectare. The defendant No.1/applicant appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that, as per the averments contained in paragraph 5 of the plaint itself, an earlier suit relating to the same cause of action had already been filed and decided, and therefore the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 12 of the CPC. The respondent No.1/plaintiff, in his reply, admitted the filing of the earlier suit and further admitted that the present suit has been instituted again seeking the same relief, though including Survey Nos.3553/2 and 1686 which were not included earlier. However, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the application solely on the ground that copies of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.41A/2017 and the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2023 passed in First Appeal No.16A/2022 were not filed, and consequently dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, giving rise to the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, who was defendant No. 1 before the trial Court, submits that the plaintiffs had previously filed a suit registered as Civil Suit No. 4A/2017, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed seeking the same relief. As such, the subsequent suit is hit by the principles of res judicata. However, the trial Court has not considered this aspect and has passed the impugned order holding that the issue of res judicata cannot be decided at the initial stage without considering the documents, and therefore the suit cannot be dismissed on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of being barred by the principles of res judicata.

5. Earlier, notices were issued; however, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents in this case.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Since the issue involved in the present matter already stands settled by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has consistently been held that the plea of res judicata cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold merely on the objection raised by the defendant, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the Court is required to