Pleadings-based rejection under Order VII Rule 11 requires a clear bar on the plaint's face; res judicata objections may await trial.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint can be rejected only if the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself, and the court cannot examine the defence in the written statement at that stage. The objections based on Order II Rule 2, Section 69 of the Partnership Act, and res judicata required scrutiny of earlier proceedings and could not be decided solely on the plaint averments. As the plaint did not, on its face, show that the reliefs in the present and earlier suits were identical, no immediate bar was established. Such objections may be considered after issues are framed and evidence is recorded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2, Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and res judicata.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint can be considered and the defence taken in the written statement cannot be looked into. A plaint can be rejected only when the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself. The pleas of res judicata and bar under Order II Rule 2, on the facts pleaded, involved examination of earlier proceedings and were not capable of being decided at that stage. The Court also noted that the reliefs claimed in the present suit and the earlier suits were not shown, on the plaint alone, to be identical so as to attract an immediate bar. Such objections may be examined after issues are framed and evidence is led.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 on the grounds urged.

---