Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Prem Kishore VS Brahm Prakash...
2023 3 Supreme 74 : The legal documents explicitly state that res judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The court held that while Section 11 of the CPC defines res judicata, the question of whether a suit is barred by res judicata cannot be determined at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). This is because such a determination involves a mixed question of law and fact that requires examination of pleadings, evidence, and the judgment of the earlier suit, which is beyond the scope of the plaint rejection stage. The court emphasized that for Order 7 Rule 11(d), only the averments in the plaint are relevant, and no evidence or further material, including the written statement or earlier judgment, can be considered. Therefore, res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for rejection of plaint at this stage, as it would require a full trial of the issue, which is not permissible under Order 7 Rule 11.Checking relevance for Pandurangan VS T. Jayarama Chettiar...
2025 6 Supreme 732 : Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in an application seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The issue of whether an ex parte decree operates as res judicata cannot be determined at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, particularly when the plaint contains specific averments about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the transaction, and a prayer for declaration and consequential relief. Therefore, res judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as it requires detailed examination of facts and merits, which is not permissible at that stage.Checking relevance for G. Sankarabushanam VS E. Dhavamani...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1592 : The court held that objections based on res judicata should require evidentiary support and be addressed as a preliminary issue before the suit is dismissed, thus restoring the plaint for trial. This indicates that res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 without proper evidence and consideration, and that the plaint should not be rejected outright on this ground without due process.Checking relevance for SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA VS HEMANT VITHAL KAMAT...
2021 5 Supreme 451 : The legal documents establish that res judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. This is because the determination of whether a suit is barred by res judicata requires a detailed examination of pleadings, issues, and judgment from the previous suit, which goes beyond the scope of the plaint alone. As held in Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644, a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) merely on the basis of res judicata, as such an issue cannot be decided by merely looking at the averments in the plaint. The court must consider the entire record of the former suit, including pleadings, issues, and judgment, which is not permissible at the stage of an Order 7 Rule 11 application. Therefore, the issue of res judicata must be decided in the suit itself, not during the application for rejection of the plaint.Checking relevance for Keshav Sood VS Kirti Pradeep Sood...
2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1288 : The court held that the issue of res-judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, as the scope of the rule is limited to looking into only the averments made in the plaint and documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be considered while deciding such an application. Therefore, res-judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC.
