The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that an objection of res judicata cannot be used to reject a plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The Court, allowing an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment, clarified that determining whether a suit is barred by res judicata requires a detailed examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of a preliminary objection application that is confined to the averments in the plaint alone. The suit was consequently restored for a full trial.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Pandurangan, filed a suit (O.S. No. 60 of 2009) for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a property he purchased in 1998 from one Mr. Hussain Babu. Mr. Babu had himself bought the property from Ms. Jayam Ammal in 1991.
The appellant’s suit was prompted by the discovery that the first respondent, T. Jayarama Chettiar, had earlier filed a partition suit (O.S. No. 298 of 1996) against Ms. Jayam Ammal and others, including Mr. Hussain Babu (the appellant’s vendor), and had obtained an ex parte decree on July 29, 1997. The appellant learned of this decree only when an advocate-commissioner was appointed by the court to inspect the property in execution of the said decree.
In his plaint, the appellant specifically contended that the ex parte decree was obtained through collusion and fraud and was therefore not binding on him. He pleaded that he was unaware of the prior litigation at the time of his purchase and that his vendor, Mr. Babu, who was in Abu Dhabi, was led to believe that the other defendants would contest the suit. The appellant further alleged that the respondent had committed fraud upon the court by filing the original suit in the Sub Court, Cuddalore, which allegedly lacked territorial jurisdiction, by including a non-related property merely to invoke its jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
The first respondent (defendant) filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 12 of 2010) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the appellant’s plaint. The respondent argued that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the issue of title had been decided by the earlier ex parte decree which had attained finality.
The appellant countered this application by arguing that he was not a party to the earlier suit and that the principle of res judicata could not be applied against him. He reiterated his allegations of fraud and collusion surrounding the earlier decree.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, in the judgment delivered by Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, disapproved of the approach taken by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Trial Court had allowed the defendant’s application and rejected the plaint, a decision later upheld by the High Court in a Civil Revision Petition.
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had made specific averments in his plaint regarding fraud and collusion which required detailed examination. The Court noted that issues such as “whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant No. 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser or not need to be examined in detail.”
The bench cited its previous decision in Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 99, to reiterate the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d). The Court quoted from the said judgment:
Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”
Further reliance was placed on Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2023, where it was held that the issue of res judicata could not be decided in an application under Order VII Rule 11 as it necessitates a review of pleadings and judgments from the prior case. The Court also referred to V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551, stating that identifying causes of action is a matter for trial where documents can be properly analysed.
The Supreme Court criticized the Trial Court for summarily dismissing the appellant’s plea of fraud and for not undertaking any analysis of the case set up in the plaint.
The Decision
The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the earlier ex parte decree would operate as res judicata could not have been decided under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, especially given the specific allegations of fraud and collusion made in the plaint.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court dated March 20, 2019, and the order of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo. The suit, O.S. No. 60 of 2009, was restored to its original number for trial. The Court directed an expeditious disposal of the suit, noting its age.
The bench made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that all grounds, including the plea of res judicata, remain open for determination during the final hearing of the suit. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Title: Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.
Civil Appeal No.: 7743 of 2025 arising from SLP (C) No. 18230 of 2025
