Res Judicata and the Rejection of a Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

In civil procedural law, an issue of perennial controversy is whether a plaint can be rejected, within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, on the ground that the suit instituted inter se the parties, is barred by the principles of res judicata. Recently, in Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1425 the Supreme Court had the occasion to examine this important issue.

Under the scheme of the CPC, the ideal situation is that a suit is properly tried. To create this enabling architecture is the main purpose of the CPC. But, at its very foundation, a suit may be so defective that there is no point in proceeding further. Thus, is born the principle of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. If a suit is hit by one of the four conditions specified in the said rule, then regardless of the merits of the claim, such a suit cannot proceed further. It must be rejected at the threshold.

However, situations have arisen where parties have previously litigated against each other in civil trials resulting in a judgment. Subsequently, one of the parties files a fresh suit against the same party. At that point, the defendant contends that the plaint be rejected, since it is barred by the res judicata as laid down in Section 11 CPC. The central idea is to persuade the court to take a view that the plaint is barred by law, within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11(d).

In Pandurangan, the SC reiterated the settled position of law that Order 7 Rule 11(d) does not allow a defendant to argue before a civil court, that the suit is barred by res judicata. Within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11, only the statements set out in the plaint are to be examined. Nothing else and no other material ought to be considered. If on the reading of the plaint alone, it appears that the suit cannot proceed further, then the plaint can be rejected.

Since issues such as whether the suit is barred by res judicata involve the assessment of a whole array of other material, including the judgments and pleadings in the previous suit between the parties, Order 7 Rule 11 is not the appropriate provision to be invoked by a defendant to have the plaint rejected.

In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors, (2021) 9 SCC 99, the Supreme Court distilled the essence on how to adjudge cases in which the defendant raises the argument that the plaint ought to be rejected on the ground of res judicata. It was declared:

“20. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized as follows:

(i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to;

(ii) The defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application;

(iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the ‘previous suit’ is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and

(iv) 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.”

What thus emerges is that the determination of whether a fresh suit is barred by the principles of res judicata is an assessment which cannot be undertaken only by examining the plaint as it stands. Since material, other than the plaint, must be examined to adjudicate this claim, it is not appropriate for this adjudication to be undertaken within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11. For this reason, the SC in Panduragan after surveying the law, declared:

“…This Court has held that such circumstances require an in-depth examination of the previous decree, and its impact on the second suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint.”

To be sure, it is not that the defendant is denied the right from challenging the sanctity of the plaint at the threshold stage. It may be that a defendant perhaps has a good case to argue that the plaintiff’s fresh suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. But although the defendant cannot raise these grounds in proceedings under Order 7 Rule 11, it is not that the defendant’s rights to have this grievance address is foreclosed. In other words, the claim that the suit is barred by res judicata can be examined as a preliminary issue by a civil court, rather than being subjected to a full-fledged trial.

The provision which has to be looked at is Order 14 Rule 2 CPC It reads:

Order 14 Rule 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues:

(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to—

(a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or

(b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force,

and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.

Notably, in Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa, (2022) 9 SCC 225 [26], [27],  the Supreme Court held:

“The court while undertaking an analysis of the applicability of the plea of res judicata determines first, if the requirements of Section 11 CPC are fulfilled; and if this is answered in the affirmative, it will have to be determined if there has been any material alteration in law or facts since the first suit was decreed as a result of which the principle of res judicata would be inapplicable.

We are unable to accept the submission of the appellants that res judicata can never be decided as a preliminary issue. In certain cases, particularly when a mixed question of law or fact is raised, the issue should await a full-fledged trial after evidence is adduced.”

1. When a plaint is instituted in a civil court, the defendant has the right to persuade the court to take a view that the plaint ought to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, this right does not empower the defendant to agitate that the plaint ought to be rejected, as being barred by the principles of res judicata as enumerated in Section 11 CPC.

2. The rule in Section 11 CPC, which legally bars plaintiffs from instituting fresh suits against the defendant on substantially the same cause of action, which has been the subject matter of a previous suit between the same parties, is not relatable to what is meant by the phrase “barred by any law” in Order 7 Rule 11(d).

3. The rationale adopted by the courts for making this distinction is due to the fact that the first part of Order 7 Rule 11(d) stipulates, “where it appears from the statement in the plaint.” This indicates that it is only the plaint which can be looked at when making a determination under Order 7 Rule 11. Nothing else can be looked into even though it may true that the dispute between the parties is indeed covered by the principles of res judicata enumerated in Section 11 CPC.

4. For Order 7 Rule 11(d) to be invoked against a plaintiff, it is essential that as the plaint stands and as evident from the statements contained in the plaint alone, the suit appears to be barred by a law.

5. Since Order 7 Rule 11(d) ordains that the material contained in the plaint alone is dispositive to any determination about whether the suit should proceed further, other material, including those provided by the defendant cannot be taken into account when making such a determination. Plainly, to establish the claim that the suit is barred by res judicata, a defendant will have to adduce a whole range of material from the previous suit. This is not permissible within the scheme of Order 7 Rule 11.

6. However, it is not as if the defendant has to go through a full length trial to establish their claim that the new suit between the parties is barred by res judicata. To examine this claim, a court may frame and try preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. It can then allow the defendant to furnish the relevant material in order to substantiate the claim that the suit is barred under the principle of res judicata  as enumerated in Section 11 CPC.

7. What is evident is that the stage at which the defendant’s claims about the suit being barred by res judicata can be raised assumes salience in the CPC. This is what the Supreme Court has sought to emphasize and clarify in Pandurangan.

8. Order 7 Rule 11 is a first line of defence against manifestly untenable suits. Yet, if questions which are fact intensive do arise in the suit, and it appears to the court that on a preliminary question the suit itself can be disposed of, recourse is to be had to Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. This is the interplay between Section 11, Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. These are the fundamental procedural mechanisms set out in the CPC.

Rohan J. Alva is an Arguing Counsel in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.