Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that res judicata is a matter for trial and not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC).  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and another (2025). 

What was the Background of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and Another, (2025) Case ? 

• The appellant purchased disputed property from Mr. Hussain Babu in 1998, who had previously acquired it from Ms. Jayam Ammal in 1991. The appellant claimed to be in peaceful possession of the property when circumstances arose that led to the present litigation. 
• While in possession, the appellant discovered that an advocate-commissioner was seeking to inspect his property. Upon inquiry, he learned that defendant No. 1, claiming to be a co-owner, had filed a partition suit against Ms. Jayam Ammal and others in O.S. No. 298 of 1996 and had secured an ex parte decree dated 29.07.1997 in his favour. 
• The appellant alleged that Ms. Jayam Ammal died immediately after the suit was filed, and her daughter Selvi did not contest the proceedings, allowing the suit to proceed ex parte. Hussain Babu, who was the third defendant in the earlier suit, was reportedly in Abu Dhabi and believed that Selvi would defend the case and protect the purchaser's interests. 
• The appellant contended that the ex parte decree was obtained fraudulently and collusively. He specifically alleged that defendant No. 1 committed fraud by filing the suit in the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, which lacked territorial jurisdiction, when the suit should have been filed in the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, based on the location of the disputed properties. 
• Compelled by these circumstances, the appellant instituted O.S. No. 60 of 2009 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming the ex parte decree was not binding on him. The defendant filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, contending that the suit was barred by res judicata since the earlier ex parte decree had attained finality. 
• The appellant argued that he was not a party to the earlier suit and therefore the principle of res judicata would not apply to him. He maintained that the ex parte decree was collusive and that the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act could not be attracted to his case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, courts can only examine plaint averments and accompanying documents, not defendant's defence or documents. 
•  The Court held that res judicata adjudication exceeds Order VII, Rule 11 scope as it requires examining pleadings, issues, and decisions from previous suits. 
• The Court noted that res judicata determination requires establishing: (i) previous suit decided, (ii) issues directly and substantially in issue in former suit, (iii) same parties or parties claiming through them under same title, and (iv) issues finally adjudicated by competent court. 
• The Court emphasised that allegations of collusive ex parte decree, jurisdictional fraud, or bonafide purchaser status require in-depth examination and detailed analysis of previous decree's impact. 
•  The Court observed that res judicata cannot be decided on mere assertions in plaint rejection applications and that cause of action similarity determination requires trial with first suit documents analysis, not speculation or inference. 
• The Supreme Court noted the Trial Court failed to consider or analyse appellant's plaint case and disagreed with its approach in rejecting the appellant's objection. 
• The Court held that res judicata objection cannot bar suits under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, particularly given specific averments about ex parte decree, transaction circumstances, and declaration prayer. 
• Merits Reserved: The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on whether the ex parte decree would operate as res judicata, keeping all defendant grounds, including res judicata, open for final trial determination. 

Can the Plea of Res Judicata Be a Ground for Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? 

• Res Judicata Principle: Section 11 of CPC establishes that no court shall try any suit where the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title, in a competent court that heard and finally decided the matter. 
• Order VII Rule 11 Scope: Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of plaint in specific circumstances, including where the suit appears from the plaint's statement to be barred by any law, with the court limited to examining only plaint averments and accompanying documents. 
• Jurisdictional Conflict: While res judicata (Section 11) can bar suits as a matter of law under Order VII Rule 11(d), the Supreme Court held that determining res judicata requires examining pleadings, issues, and decisions from previous suits, which exceeds the limited scope of plaint rejection applications. 
• Procedural Limitation: The Court established that res judicata adjudication involves complex factual and legal analysis of previous litigation, party relationships, and issue identity, which cannot be conclusively determined merely from plaint statements without detailed examination of prior proceedings. 
• Judicial Precedent: Following precedents in Srihari Hanumandas Totala and Keshav Sood cases, the Supreme Court clarified that res judicata pleas should be decided during trial where complete documentation and evidence from former suits can be properly analysed, not summarily disposed of under Order VII Rule 11. 
• Practical Application: The Court emphasised that res judicata cannot be determined through speculation or inference but requires substantive trial examination, particularly in cases involving allegations of fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in previous proceedings. 

Case Laws 

• Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors.(2021): 
  • Establish guiding principles that res judicata adjudication is beyond Order VII, Rule 11 scope, requiring consideration of pleadings, issues, and decisions from previous suits. 
• V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava (2004): 
  • The Court held that identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed, emphasising that res judicata cannot be speculative.