{"id":988,"date":"2023-10-16T13:42:20","date_gmt":"2023-10-16T08:12:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=988"},"modified":"2023-10-16T13:42:20","modified_gmt":"2023-10-16T08:12:20","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-the-issue-of-res-judicata-could-not-have-been-decided-on-an-application-under-rule-11-of-order-vii-of-cpc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-the-issue-of-res-judicata-could-not-have-been-decided-on-an-application-under-rule-11-of-order-vii-of-cpc\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

KESHAV SOOD [<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)] VS. KIRTI PRADEEP SOOD & ORS. [<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h2>\n

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5841 OF 2023
\n<\/strong>(2JB, ABHAY S.OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL JJ.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The appellant is the original defendant. He applied in the suit filed by the respondents for rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.Written statement was filed by the appellant raising a contention of bar of res judicata. In the application filed by the appellant under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, reliance was placed on several documents\/orders of various Courts. The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the appeal preferred by the respondents\/plaintiffs, a Division bench of the High Court has interfered on merits by holding that the finding on the plea of res judicata recorded by the learned Single Judge was not correct.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the issue of res judicata could be decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC?<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court disposed off the present appeal, by keeping the issue of res judicata open. It was held that, \u201cthe plea of res judicata could not have been gone into on an application made by the appellant under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. Apart from pleadings in the earlier suit, several other documents which were relied upon by the appellant in his application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC were required to be gone into for deciding the issue of res judicata. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the Appellate Courts. Therefore, we make it clear that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on merits. Therefore, we agree with the final conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court that the suit needs to be decided on merits with a modification that the issue of res judicata will remain open and the learned Single Judge will frame an issue on res judicata along with the other issues.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KESHAV SOOD [APPELLANT(S)] VS. KIRTI PRADEEP SOOD & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)] CIVIL APPEAL NO.5841 OF 2023 (2JB, ABHAY S.OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL JJ.) Facts: The appellant is the original defendant. He applied in the suit filed by the respondents for rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":990,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-988","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/988","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=988"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/988\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":992,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/988\/revisions\/992"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/990"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}