TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of res judicata by looking beyond the plaint averments. (ii) Whether the plaint disclosed grounds for rejection on the pleaded objections of non-payment of court fee and absence of cause of action.
Issue (i): Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of res judicata by looking beyond the plaint averments.
Analysis: The governing test under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is whether the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law. The enquiry is confined to the plaint, and the defence in the written statement cannot be used to decide an application for rejection of plaint. A plea of res judicata ordinarily requires examination of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the former suit to ascertain identity of issues, parties and final adjudication. Since such material lies beyond the plaint, the plea cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d). On the facts pleaded, the subsequent suit disclosed that the earlier suit was pending when it was filed and that no decree had then been passed.
Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on the ground of res judicata.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaint disclosed grounds for rejection on the pleaded objections of non-payment of court fee and absence of cause of action.
Analysis: Rejection for insufficient court fee under Order 7 Rule 11(c) arises only where the court has required correction and the plaintiff fails to comply. No such direction was shown. As to cause of action, the plaint expressly pleaded the factual basis for the claim, including the asserted share in the property, the alleged invalid mortgage and sale, and the challenge to the sale deed.
Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected on either of these grounds.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the rejection application was sustained, while leaving the question of res judicata open to be considered in the suit in accordance with law, including by way of a preliminary issue if found appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) must be decided only on the averments in the plaint, and a plea of res judicata that depends on comparison with the pleadings, issues and judgment in the former suit cannot ordinarily be adjudicated at that stage.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
