Supreme Court on Rejection of Plaint under O.7 R.11 of CPC due to Res Judicata

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 565, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”) that deals with the contingencies under which a Plaint could be rejected by the Trial Court where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. To read further about it, kindly refer to my earlier post in the year 2018 at the link pasted in the description.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Defendant/Appellant in the present case preferred an Application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC before the Trial Court inter alia on the ground that the Suit is barred by a law i.e., res judicata under Section 11 of CPC.

 

Such Application was rejected by the Trial Court against which the Defendant/Appellant preferred Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC before the High Court. However, the same was also rejected by the High Court. Hence, the Defendant/Appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

 

Before adverting any further, let us peruse the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

 

Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC – “The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: -

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;”

 

Section 11 of CPC was also discussed that talks about res judicata. It provides that “a court shall not try any suit or issue in which the matter that is directly in issue has been directly or indirectly heard and decided in a ‘former suit’.”

 

Now, let us discuss the pertinent observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court noted that whether a 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.”

 

Secondly, with respect to res judicata, the Court opined that to adjudicate res judicata, it is imperative to refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the judgment of the ‘former suit’. According to the Court, the plea of res judicata is founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and such pleas cannot be left to be determined through speculation as res judicata involves mixed question of law and fact that cannot be examined without looking at the evidence in the earlier suit.

 

Thirdly, the Court observed that to invoke Order 7 Rule 11 (d), it is required to be shown that a suit is barred under any law and such conclusion has to be necessarily drawn only from the averments made in the Plaint and no amount of evidence could be looked into. The merits of the matter are not within the realm of the Court at the stage of deciding an Application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Further, even the Written Statement of the Defendant cannot be looked into at that stage.

 

Fourthly, the Court also observed that if different provisions under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are invoked in a same case, then a clear finding to such effect must be arrived at.

 

Fifthly, the Court also opined that though it is inappropriate to invoke the plea of res judicata at the stage of deciding an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, yet it is within the powers of the Trial Court to take up such issues that relate to maintainability of a Suit and decide them at first instance. This would save precious judicial time.

 

Sixthly, the Court postulated four cardinal principles to decide an Application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC as follows: -

 

a. To reject a plaint on the ground that a suit is barred under any law, only the averments in the Plaint are to be looked into.

 

b. The defence or the Written Statement of the Defendant cannot be looked into while deciding such Application.

 

c. To determine res judicata, provisions of Section 11 of CPC have to be looked into and complied with.

 

d. However, the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of the matter, the Supreme Court was of the view that since prima facie reading of the Plaint does not disclose that it is barred by res judicata, pleadings, issues and judgment of the former suit would have to be looked into and hence, the Trial Court rightly rejected the Application of the Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

 

That was all about the case. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC is a handy tool for the litigants to make sure that a Plaint that is otherwise barred under any law does not see the light of the day and is rejected at the threshold saving precious judicial time. However, technical pleas such as that of res judicata that require a deep scrutiny of the pleadings, issues and judgment of the former suit cannot be considered to be a bar in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC unless the same could be established by mere averments of the Plaint.