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

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 799 of 2024 HIMANSHU YADAV AND OTHERS Versus RAJ KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Shailesh Kumar Jain -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey- Advocate for the respondent No.2 Ms. Sulekha Sharma - P.L. for the respondents / State.

ORDER The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial court has rejected the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 11 CPC. The application under Section 11 CPC was filed alleging that the suit is barred by the res judicata and the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also filed on the same assertion that the suit is barred by law of res judicata in as much as there has been previous suit between the same parties and therefore the subsequent suit is not maintainable.

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the relief sought in the fresh suit is in respect of declaration of one exchange deed dated 04.04.2007 to be void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff in respect of Survey number 279/4. It is vehemently argued that the earlier suit which was between the same parties had the issue No. 5 that whether on the basis of forged and fraudulent documents the defendants have managed to get their names entered in Survey number 279/4 and 280/2. It is argued that in response to the said issue the parties had led their evidence as to the said exchange deed and therefore the matters in issue in the previous suit and in the subsequent suit between the same parties are similar. It is argued that permitting the subsequent suit to continue would only lead to agony of the defendants who would have to defend the same suit again and again. Plaintiffs argue that even if some part of the relief they omitted to pray in the earlier suit then that relief would be barred in terms of mandatory provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because if they could pray certain reliefs which they did not pray, then it would amount to relinquishment of the aforesaid relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on following judgments in support of his vehement contentions :-

Ishwardas Vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 551, K.V. George Vs. The Secretary to Govt., Water and Power Dept., Trivandrum and Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 53.

State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain reported in AIR 1977 SC 1680 Ramadhar Shrivas Vs. Bhagwandas reported in AIRONLINE

2005 SC 14 Babulal Vs. Kanhaiyalal reported in AIR 1975 RAJASTHAN

136, Srimati Raj Lakshmi Dasi and Ors. Vs. Banamali Sen and Ors.

3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has vehemently contended that there is no similarity of issues between both the suits and there is a lot of distinction between the scope of the earlier suit and of the subsequent suit. The earlier suit was not filed for avoiding the exchange deed on the ground that it is not binding on the plaintiff. Now the issue would arise in the present suit that whether the exchange deed is binding on the plaintiff or not. Therefore, on this ground and on other various arguments, it is contended that the facts and issue in both the suits are different. It is further argued that whether the suit is barred by res judicata or not cannot be the subject matter of an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and it has been held so by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. Therefore, the counsel for respondents has fervently and vehemently made a plea to reject the present revision.

4. Heard.

5. The trial Court has rejected the application for rejection of plaint on the ground of it being barred by the principle of res judicata on the ground that whether the matters in issue in both