IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 67 of 2026 PAWAN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Versus SMT SUMAN JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri D.P. Sharma- P.L. for the respondents / State.

ORDER The present revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court dated 20.11.2025 whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and refused to reject the plaint which was sought by the plaintiff on the ground contained in Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC.

2. The facts in brief leading to the present petition are that initially the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of sale deed as void, declaration of title, permanent injunction, declaration of possession and demolition of construction. The said suit was filed on 05.01.2023 and subsequently the trial Court returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC vide order dated 08.05.2024 on the ground that upon amendment in the plaint, the valuation of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and therefore, since the valuation of the suit exceeded the pecuniary limit of the Court to try the suit, hence upon prayer of the plaintiff, the trial Court returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for the same to be presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. After this order having been passed on 08.05.2024, the plaintiff filed the fresh suit on 19.12.2024 and the fresh suit did not contain exactly the same pleadings but certain pleadings were changed. The relief clause of the suit was rephrased and certain pleadings were modified in the plaint. The plaintiff filed the fresh plaint with fresh Court fees and did not file the same plaint memo which had been returned by the trial Court to be presented in Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. In such circumstances the petitioner-defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) CPC that has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 20.11.2025 on the ground that there is no proper valuation nor proper Court fees and the fresh suit is barred and the plaintiff was only required to file the same plaint memo and no change in pleadings could have been carried out.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has vehemently argued that the plaintiff could not have filed a fresh plaint memo and the plaintiff was under obligation to file the same plaint memo which had been returned by the earlier trial Court under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and the plaint memo had been returned in original to be presented before the trial Court of a competent jurisdiction and it did not give any right or liberty to the petitioner to redraft the plaint memo and file a fresh suit which is barred.

It is further argued that if the fresh plaint is considered as fresh suit then it is barred by limitation.

6 . Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that earlier the petitioner had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division and vide order dated 08.05.2024, the trial Court had returned the plaint to be presented in the Court of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.

7. In terms of the said order, the plaintiff filed a fresh plaint before the trial Court of different pecuniary jurisdiction on 29.12.2024.

8. The question that whether the plaintiff could not have filed a fresh plaint and should have filed the same plaint which was returned by the trial Court earlier is concerned, return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC does not amount to res judicata because there is no adjudication on merits and Order 7 Rule 10 CPC further does not bar a fresh suit.

9. If the plaintiff had desired to file a fresh plaint with fresh Court fees containing somewhat modified pleadings then at the most it could be argued to be a fresh suit