Res judicata cannot justify plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) when it depends on material outside the plaint.

A plea of res judicata cannot ordinarily form the basis for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) because that enquiry must be confined to the plaint averments, while res judicata usually depends on pleadings, issues and the record of the earlier proceeding. The Court also noted that an earlier eviction petition dismissed for failure to lead evidence is not, by itself, a decision on merits for res judicata unless the record shows a substantive adjudication. On that footing, the rejection of the eviction petition was held unsustainable and the matter was restored for consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a plea of res judicata could be the basis for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the dismissal of the earlier eviction petition for failure to lead evidence amounted to a decision on merits so as to bar the second petition on res judicata.

Issue (i): Whether a plea of res judicata could be the basis for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Analysis: An application under Order VII Rule 11(d) must be decided only on the basis of the averments in the plaint. The defence taken in the written statement, and material outside the plaint, cannot be examined at that stage. A plea of res judicata generally requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the former proceeding, and therefore involves facts and materials beyond the plaint.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata could not be decided under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the plaint alone and the rejection of the plaint on that ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the earlier eviction petition for failure to lead evidence amounted to a decision on merits so as to bar the second petition on res judicata

Analysis: For res judicata to apply, the earlier matter must have been directly and substantially in issue, between the same parties or their privies, and finally decided on merits by a competent court. A dismissal that is merely for default or for failure to adduce evidence, without the case being decided on the merits on the material before the court, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. The order passed in the earlier eviction petition showed closure of evidence and dismissal for failure to establish the case, but it was not a merits determination under Order XVII Rule 3.

Conclusion: The earlier eviction petition was not dismissed on merits in a manner that attracted res judicata against the second petition.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the eviction petition was set aside and the matter was restored for consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of res judicata cannot ordinarily be the basis for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) because it depends on material beyond the plaint, and a prior dismissal for failure to adduce evidence is not, by itself, a decision on merits for res judicata purposes unless the record shows an adjudication on the substantive issue.

---