Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Res Judicataa Could Not Be Decided Under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India clarified the scope and limitations of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in a landmark decision today. The ruling stated that the plea of res judicata could not be decided solely under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, echoing the court's observation that the "issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC at this stage."

The case involved appellant Keshav Sood versus Kirti Pradeep Sood & Others, who had applied for the rejection of a plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. A Single Judge initially rejected the plaint, citing res judicata, but this decision was later reversed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

The apex court stated that while considering a plea under Rule 11, the court can only look into the averments made in the plaint and, at the highest, documents produced along with it. "Defense and documents relied upon by the defendant cannot be considered while deciding such application," the bench noted.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision that the suit needs to be decided on merits but modified the ruling by stating that the issue of res judicata would remain open for future proceedings. In its observation, the Supreme Court emphasized, "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 merits."

Legal experts view this judgment as a significant clarification regarding the scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC and its interplay with the concept of res judicata. It sets the groundwork for how similar cases may be considered in the future.

The court disposed of the appeal with no order as to costs, rounding off a judgment that could have far-reaching implications in civil law proceedings in India.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2023

KESHAV SOOD    vs KIRTI PRADEEP SOOD & ORS.      

Latest Legal News