### Maintainability and Res Judicata as Mixed Questions of Law and Fact Require Trial for Adjudication

The petitioner-wife challenged an order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bargarh, in MAT Case No. 71/67 of 2021

The petitioner had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the matrimonial plaint filed by the husband. She contended that a previous matrimonial suit (MAT Case No. 31 of 2014) based on the same cause of action (dated 02.06.2013) had been dismissed on merits and confirmed through successive appeals

Earlier, the Family Court had rejected the petitioner's challenge to the suit’s maintainability on the grounds of res judicata, an order which was upheld by a coordinate bench of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 35543 of 2023, with a direction that maintainability would be decided during the final trial

The petitioner subsequently filed the present Order VII Rule 11 application, which was rejected by the trial court on 03.07.2024

1. Whether the plaint in MAT Case No. 71/67 of 2021 was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC for failure to disclose a cause of action or for being a repetitive suit on the same cause

2. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application in light of the High Court's previous direction to decide maintainability at the final disposal stage

The court primarily applied Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which mandates the rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action

It further relied on the principle of judicial discipline and the finality of interlocutory directions, noting that a previous order by a coordinate bench of the High Court—which held that maintainability is a mixed question of fact and law to be decided after trial—is binding on the parties and cannot be reviewed by a bench of concurrent jurisdiction

It also applied the procedural rule regarding the recasting of issues under the CPC to ensure all legal objections, including res judicata and estoppel, are addressed during the trial

The Court observed that the petitioner was attempting to re-agitate the same challenge to the suit's maintainability under the "guise" of an Order VII Rule 11 application

The Court found that the Family Court had already recasted the issues on 14.02.2023 to include specific queries on whether the suit was barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, or a lack of cause of action

The High Court reasoned that since a coordinate bench had previously ruled in W.P.(C) No. 35543 of 2023 that the question of maintainability must be decided alongside other issues based on evidence at the final stage, the petitioner was not prejudiced

The court underscored that it could not review the earlier coordinate bench's order and that the trial court's decision to preserve these legal objections for the final judgment was appropriate

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, declining to interfere with the trial court's order dated 03.07.2024... The Court clarified that this judgment does not constitute an observation on the merits of the case and directed the Family Court to proceed with the trial