18 Sep 2023 5:54 AM GMT
The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
This decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal clarified the scope and application of Rule 11(d) of CPC and its relationship with the doctrine of res judicata.
It delved into Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, which provides for the rejection of a plaint when "the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law."
Section 11 of the CPC which enunciates the rule of res judicata: A court shall not try any suit or issue in which the matter that is directly in issue has been directly or indirectly heard and decided in a ‘former suit.
The Court made several significant observations:
Therefore, it concluded that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on its merits. It disposed off the appeal while keeping the issue of res judicata open.
The Supreme Court's recent pronouncement echoes the findings made by Justice DY Chandrachud in the 2021 case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, where it was held that res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
In a landmark decision, Justice R C Lahoti speaking for a two-Judge bench in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava (2004) 1 SCC 551 discussed the plea of res judicata and the particulars that would be required to prove the plea.
It had held that “Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues, and judgment in the previous case. But as pointed out in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa [(1976) 4 SCC 780] the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit.”
Building upon this framework, the court in Kamala v. KT Eshwara Sa (2008) 12 SCC 661 held that “For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court in 2020 in a three-judge bench decision in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India (2020 SCC OnLine SC 482) emphasized that only averments in plaint would be looked into and nothing else. It opined that “what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averment. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100.”
In the present case at hand, the question revolved around a dispute where the appellant had applied for the rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. The plaintiffs had filed the suit against the appellant, and in response, the appellant filed a written statement, invoking the contention of res judicata. Res judicata is a doctrine that prevents the re-litigation of matters already adjudicated in previous legal proceedings.
initially, the learned Single Judge accepted the appellant's application and proceeded to reject the plaintiffs' plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs, known as the respondents in the case, appealed the Single Judge's decision to the HC emphatically asserting that the finding on the plea of res judicata recorded by the Single Judge was not correct. The Division bench held that Single Judge had erred in accepting the appellant's plea of res judicata. Therefore, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.
Case title: Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799
Click Here To Read/Download Order