Plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) requires an apparent bar; res judicata and lis pendens need trial where fraud is pleaded.

Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC permits rejection of a plaint only when the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Res judicata generally requires examination of prior pleadings, issues and adjudication, and cannot be determined from the written statement or disputed facts at the threshold. Where the plaint alleges fraud, collusion and a distinct cause of action, the bar may involve mixed questions of law and fact and is not conclusively resolved on a bare reading of the plaint. Lis pendens likewise does not justify rejection at that stage on the available material. The suit therefore had to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata and lis pendens at the stage when the plaint alleged fraud, collusion, and a distinct cause of action.

Analysis: The bar under Order 7 Rule 11(d) must be evident from the averments in the plaint itself. A plea of res judicata depends on foundational facts and ordinarily requires examination of the earlier pleadings, issues, and adjudication; it is not to be decided by relying upon the written statement or by entering into disputed matters of fact. Where the plaint asserts fraud and collusion and the cause of action pleaded is different, the question whether the suit is barred becomes one involving mixed questions of law and fact and cannot be conclusively determined on a bare reading of the plaint. The principle of lis pendens also does not justify rejection of the plaint at that threshold on the material then available.

Conclusion: The suit could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on the ground of res judicata or lis pendens at that stage; the matter required trial.

---