Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision petition filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1 in the original suit) challenging the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, dismissing I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in O.S.No.671/2020. The respondent No.1 (plaintiff) had filed a suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for a declaration that the preliminary decree passed by the High Court in R.F.A.No.2331/2007 dated 14.07.2017 and the final decree drawn by the Trial Court in FDP No.25017/2017 dated 06.02.2019 are not binding on him or affecting the suit schedule property, along with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the question of res judicata could not be decided at that stage. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the Trial Court's order, holding that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as the plaintiff's claim was based on a different title and the earlier decrees were challenged as not binding on him. The court emphasized that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d), only the plaint allegations are to be considered, and if the plaint discloses a cause of action, the application must be dismissed. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Cause of Action - The court considered whether the plaint should be rejected as barred by res judicata where the plaintiff sought declaration that a preliminary decree and final decree were not binding on him. Held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as the plaintiff claimed independent title and challenged the decrees as not binding, which required trial. (Paras 5-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Res Judicata - Applicability - The court examined whether the suit was barred by res judicata in view of the earlier preliminary decree in RFA No.2331/2007. Held that the plaintiff was not a party to the earlier suit and claimed independent title, hence res judicata did not apply at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d). (Paras 7-9) C) Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Scope - The court reiterated that for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court must look only at the plaint allegations and not the defense. Held that the plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action, even if the defense appears strong. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata and that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the Trial Court's order dated 02.06.2022. The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was rightly rejected. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- rejection of plaint
- cause of action
- res judicata
- preliminary decree
- final decree
- binding nature of decree
- suit for declaration
- permanent injunction
