A plaint cannot be rejected based on constructive res-judicata at the initial stage; it requires full consideration of evidence.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA CAV ORDER

16 02.12.2025 This civil revision application is filed against order dated 06.05.2019 passed in the Title Suit No. 10 of 2000, by the Learned Sub-Judge I, Dalsing Sarai, Samastipur whereby and where under the petition dated 10.11.2014 filed on behalf of defendant-petitioner under Order VII rule 11of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) was rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by law and the principle of res-

judicata.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel on the behalf of petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court committed illegality in refusing the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the impugned order is illegal, improper and against the mandatory provisions of law and is liable to set aside. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that the plaint is barred by principle of constructive res-judicata and the plaintiff case is vexatious, merit less and completely based on irrelevant statements and frivolous facts thus the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

3.i. He further submitted that the petitioner-defendants purchased the suit land from Radhika Devi through registered sale deed dated 13.04.1999. Radhika Devi is the absolute owner of suit land of her father share and as per the final decree passed by Privy Council vide appeal no 102 of 1933 decided in favour of Radhika Devi, present suit is not maintainable as it is barred by principles of constructive res-judicata. He further submitted that the petitioner filed a petition dated 10.11.2014 (Annexure- 5) before the learned Trial Court to dismiss the plaint as the same is barred by law and principle of constructive res-judicata under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC hence not maintainable. The dispute regarding the disputed land described in Schedule-1 of the plaint has already been finally decided by Hon'ble Patna High Court vide Judgment and decree dated 12.04.1932 in title appeal no.168 of 1927 and by Pricy Council at London vide order dated 11.10.1935 in Privy Council Appeal no.102 of 1933 in favour of said Radhika Devi.

3.ii. He further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent no.1 to 3 are bound by the aforesaid judgment and decree drawn up and affirmed by this Court and Privy Council. The purpose of res-judicata sprouted from the maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” which means no person should be vexed twice for the same cause. He relies on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr. reported in (2004)3 SCC 137 in which it has been held that a duty is cast on court to perform its obligation in rejecting the plaint hit by any of the infirmities under Clause (a) to (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC without intervention of defendant and trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 at any Stage of the Suit.

3.iii. He further submitted that the defendants are not tenant of plaintiffs and have never paid monthly rent to the plaintiffs hence there has been no relation of landlord and tenant between them. The defendant-petitioner purchased the disputed land from Smt. Radhika Devi vide registered sale deed dated 23.03.1999 and constructed house over the same. The plaintiffs ought to have filed eviction suit in the Trial Court under Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the defendant-petitioner was their tenant, but they have instituted title suit No.10 of 2000 for eviction of petitioner, hence not maintainable in law and moreover Tauzi No. has not been intentionally mentioned by the plaintiff in Schedule 1 of the plaint for the purpose of concealment of facts. The relief sought