Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood held that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Background

• In this case, 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 (CPC).
• A written statement was filed by the appellant invoking the contention of res judicata.
• The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
• The High Court asserted that the finding on the plea of res judicata recorded by the Single Judge was not correct and it had erred in accepting the appellant's plea of res judicata.
• The Division Bench of the High Court further held 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.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• While disposing off the appeal, the Supreme Court concluded 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 its merits.

Court’s Observations

• Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal observed that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and clarified the scope and application of Rule 11(d) of CPC and its relationship with the doctrine of res judicata.
• The Court held that apart from the pleadings in the earlier suit, several other documents relied upon by the appellant in their application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC needed to be considered to decide the issue of res judicata.
• The Court restated that the law regarding the scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is well-established. It emphasized that the Court can only consider the averments made in the plaint and, at most, the documents produced along with the plaint. The defense presented by a defendant and the documents they rely upon cannot be taken into account while deciding such an application.
• The Court further emphasized that the issue of res judicata entails a detailed examination of various elements, including the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court, and the judgment of the Appellate Courts.

Legal Provisions

Principle of Res Judicata

Section 11 of CPC contains the principle of Res Judicata. It states that -

• No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
• Explanation I - The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
• Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
• Explanation III - The matter referred to above must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
• Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
• Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
• Explanation VI - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
• Explanation VII - The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
• Explanation VIII - An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

Case Laws

• In Mathura Prasad v. Dossabhoi N B Jeejeebhoy (1970), the Apex Court held that previous proceedings would operate as res judicata only in respect of issues of facts and not on issues of pure questions of law.
• In the case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v. Union of India (1971), Calcutta High Court held that the plea of res judicata may be waived by a party to a proceeding.
• In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat (2021), the Supreme Court held that res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

Order VII Rule 11, CPC

Rule 11 of Order VII deals with the Rejection of Plaint. It states that -

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action.

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate.

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.