Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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