Suit is barred by law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and not from WS, Plea of Res Judicata beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d)CPC: Supreme Court

The SC on Aug 09, 2021 {Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors} held that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected “where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”. It was held that in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed. It was also held that the Court while deciding such an application must have due regard only to the statements in the plaint. It was held that whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case.

It was held by the Bench, comprising of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud  & Justice M.R. Shah that 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.

The SC held that 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. 

It was held that it is relevant to note in the present lis that at the time of institution of the suit (OS No. 138/2008) by the first respondent, no decree had been passed by the civil court in OS No. 103/2007. Thus, it was held that the issues raised in OS No. 103/2007, at the time, had not been adjudicated upon. Therefore, it was held that the plaint, on the face of it, does not disclose any fact that may lead us to the conclusion that it deserves to be rejected on the ground that it is barred by principles of res judicata. It was held that the High Court and the Trial Court were correct in their approach in holding, that to decide on the arguments raised by the appellant, the court would have to go beyond the averments in the plaint, and peruse the pleadings, and judgment and decree in OS No. 103/2007. It was held by the SC that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 must be decided within the four corners of the plaint. It was held that the Trial court and High Court were correct in rejecting the application under order 7 Rule 11(d).

For the above reasons, the SC held that the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The court granted liberty to the appellant, who claims as an assignee of the bona fide purchaser of the suit property in an auction conducted by KSFC, to raise an issue of the maintainability of the suit before the Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum in OS No. 138/2008. It was directed that the Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum shall consider whether a preliminary issue should be framed under Order XIV, and if so, decide it within a period of 3 months of raising the preliminary issue. It was also directed that in any event, the suit shall be finally adjudicated upon within the outer limit of 31 March 2022.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 18 January 2021. Consequently, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC stood dismissed.