##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI ON THE 2^nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 350 of 2017 SATISH KUMAR AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Versus FIRM VIVEK KAMAL BINDAL THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Pathak - Advocate for respondent no.1.

Mr. Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for respondent no.2.

ORDER Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.04.2017 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.5-A of 2015, arising out of the judgment dated 22.01.2015 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Guna in Civil Suit No.9-A of 2013, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the aforesaid judgments, both the Courts below have dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the same is barred by res-judicata.

2. For the purposes of decision of this case, it is sufficient to note that the appellants have filed a suit for permanent injunction and for declaration praying for the following reliefs :

"अ. यह (cid:5)क ड(cid:8)(cid:9)यू, ए(cid:12)स, वाई, जेड से िच(cid:21)(cid:22)हत लाल रंग से रंगे हुए भाग क(cid:30) गली पर से होकर वाद(cid:35)गण अपने द(cid:21)(cid:38)ण म(cid:40) (cid:21)(cid:41)थत गोदाम पर पहुचं ने के एक मा(cid:43) माग(cid:44) के

SSS0 S 3 iHi igg g :A4 nn n 8 eiRn a : dMg0 t u 7 bAti yr mP e: Me BN :A 0 oR9 tK /0 VH9 eA/2 ri 0 fi 2 e 6 d

(cid:41)व(cid:45)वाधार(cid:35) व सुखािधकार का भोग करने के वैधािनक अिधकार(cid:35) है, ऐसी घोषणा क(cid:30)

जावे।

ब. यह (cid:5)क (cid:54)ितवाद(cid:35)गण के (cid:55)व(cid:56)(cid:57) (cid:41)थाई िनषेधा(cid:58)ा का जयप(cid:43) पा(cid:59)रत (cid:5)कया जावे (cid:5)क (cid:54)ितवाद(cid:35)गण ड(cid:8)(cid:9)यू, ए(cid:12)स, वाई, जेड के लाल रग से बताए भाग पर कोई ऐसा िनमाण(cid:44) (cid:54)ितवाद(cid:35)गण न करे (cid:21)जसके कारण माग(cid:44) बद हो जावे और वाद(cid:35)गण अपने 44 वष(cid:44) पुराने (cid:55)पता हरनारायण के जमाने के गली से होकर िनकलने के सुखािधकार से बिचत हो

जावे।

स. यह (cid:5)क (cid:54)ितवाद(cid:35)गणके (cid:55)व(cid:56)(cid:57) ऐसी भी (cid:41)थाई िनषेधा(cid:58)ा पा(cid:59)रत क(cid:30) जावे (cid:5)क वे (cid:5)कसी अ(cid:22)य एजेसी के (cid:61)ारा भी ऐसा िनमाण(cid:44) न करावे (cid:21)जसके कारण ड(cid:8)(cid:9)यू, ए(cid:12)स, वाई, जेड लाल रंग के माग(cid:44) से होकर आने जाने के सुखािधकार से वाद(cid:35)गण को बिचत होना पडे।

द. यह (cid:5)क इस वाद का (cid:64)यय तथा अ(cid:22)य (cid:22)यायालयीन सहायताए जो माननीय (cid:22)यायालय उिचत समझे वाद(cid:35)गण को (cid:54)ितवाद(cid:35)गण से (cid:5)दलाए जाने क(cid:30) कृपा क(cid:30) जावे।"

3. The defendants filed their separate written statements denying the plaintiffs' claim. While the suit was pending, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata. It was averred that an earlier civil suit, being Civil Suit No.44-A of 1987, had already been decided between the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendants, and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to raise the same issue again. The plaintiffs opposed the application. The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, by the impugned judgments and decrees, allowed the application and rejected the plaint, holding it to be barred by res-

judicata.

4. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by both the courts, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the issue of res judicata is required to be decided on the basis of the pleadings and the judgment and decree passed in the previous suit and cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule

SSS0 S 3 iHi igg g :A4 nn n 8 eiRn a : dMg0 t u 7 bAti yr mP e: Me BN :A 0 oR9 tK /0 VH9 eA/2 ri 0 fi 2 e 6 d

11 CPC. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat, reported in (2021)9 SCC 99, and Keshav Sood Vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC