Order

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 26.03.2025 passed by Court of Learned Assistant Collector cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahpura, whereby rejecting application of petitioner–defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Petitioners have also challenged validity of order dated 13.01.2026 passed by Learned Board of Revenue, whereby revision petition preferred by petitioners challenging said order dated 26.03.2025 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, factual background giving rise to present writ petition are as follows. Respondent–plaintiffs filed a suit under Sections 88 and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, for declaration of khatedari rights and for seeking partition.

3. In said suit, petitioner-defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stating therein that on an earlier occasion, plaintiff’s father had filed a revenue suit, namely, suit no. 12/89, with regard to the same land, which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1990. It was submitted that said judgment and decree dated 19.11.1990 had attained finality and operated as res-judicata against present suit. Accordingly, on said ground, defendants prayed for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, learned trial Court, vide its order dated 26.03.2025, rejected said application of petitioner-defendants, holding that objection of res judicata is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Revision petition filed against said order dated 26.03.2025 was also dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.01.2026. Hence, present writ petition.

5. The precise controversy involved in matter at hand is whether a suit / plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the sole ground of applicability of principle of res-judicata.

6. Law in this regard is well settled. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1425 has held that at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of plaint are required to be examined to determine whether or not the same is barred by any law.

7. In contrast, objection based on res-judicata generally arises from the pleadings contained in written statement, which ordinarily cannot be considered at the stage of deciding application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

8. Relevant paras of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandurangan (supra) are extracted below:-

“8. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., this Court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the Court held:

“25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows:

25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to.

25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application.

25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the “previous suit” is decided (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit.

25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the “previous suit”, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”(emphasis supplied)

9. Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion