### Plea of Res Judicata Cannot be Decided in an Application for Rejection of Plaint.

The Petitioner (Original Plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 282 of 2017 for partition and separate possession against the Respondents.

The Respondents filed a written statement contending the suit was barred by res judicata due to five previously filed suits between the parties.

While the trial court had already framed an issue regarding res judicata below Exhibit-26, the Respondents subsequently filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (Exhibit-30) seeking rejection of the plaint.

On March 21, 2024, the Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai, allowed the application and dismissed the suit, holding it barred by Section 11 of the CPC.

The Petitioner challenged this dismissal via a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether a plaint can be rejected on the ground of res judicata under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC by looking into documents and pleadings of previous suits.

Whether the trial court's summary dismissal of the suit was legally sustainable when an issue on res judicata had already been framed for trial.

The court applied Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which mandates that a plaint shall be rejected only where the suit appears "from the statement in the plaint" to be barred by law.

It relied on the principle that while deciding such an application, the court must only consider the averments in the plaint and not the defense or external documents.

The court cited Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh (2025 SCC Online SC 2240) regarding the limited scope of Rule 11, and Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood (Civil Appeal No. 5841/2023) and Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, which established that res judicata is a matter of trial and is generally beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) because it requires consideration of previous pleadings and judgments.

The High Court reasoned that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) is strictly confined to the four corners of the plaint's allegations.

The trial court erred by traveling beyond the plaint to examine the records of five earlier suits to determine the applicability of Section 11 of the CPC.

The Court observed that since res judicata involves assessing whether issues were "directly and substantially" the same and finally decided by a competent court in a "previous suit," it necessitates evidence and a full trial.

Furthermore, because the trial court had already framed a specific issue on res judicata at Exhibit-26, the Respondents were entitled to lead evidence during the trial rather than seeking a summary dismissal.

The High Court found the lower court's reasoning perverse and contrary to settled Supreme Court precedents.

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed and set aside the order dated March 21, 2024, and restored Regular Civil Suit No. 282 of 2017 to the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai.

Rule was made absolute.