Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pramila vs Mukesh Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:3266) on 19 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:3266]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16892/2023
Pramila W/o Nitin Kumar Srivastava, Aged About 42 Years, 1St
Floor, House No. 46, C-Block, Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Parnami, House No. 205, Street
No. 5, Indra Colony, Sri Ganganagar
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dixit Panwar for
Mr. Rakesh Matoria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dishant Verma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order 19/01/2026
1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by Learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, rejecting the application of the petitioner-tenant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Explaining the background facts, counsel for the petitioner- tenant stated that one Late Smt. Darshna Devi filed eviction petition bearing Rent Case No. 24/2021, against the petitioner- tenant on the ground of bonafide necessity as well as requirement of repair and maintenance in the premises in question. She was expired on 05.07.2021 and respondent Mukesh Kumar, being her son, has been impleaded as her legal representative and continued the said eviction petition.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:39:58 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3266] (2 of 7) [CW-16892/2023] Later on, the respondent himself has preferred a fresh rent petition, Rent Petition No. 01/2023 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Pramila), inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent.
3. The petitioner-tenant preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the subsequent petition and prayed for dismissal of the said petition on the ground that subsequent rent petition is barred by principles of res subjudice and res judicata.
4. The application so preferred by the petitioner-tenant was contested by the respondent-landlord. Learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar while passing order dated 02.08.2023 dismissed the application on the ground that the subsequent petition has been filed on different ground and for the purpose of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint/petition are required to be seen, which in itself does not seem to be barred by any law.
5. Challenging the order dated 02.08.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Section 10 and Section 11 of CPC, stated that learned Rent Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the subsequent rent petition has been filed by the respondent-landlord for the purpose of same relief and with regard to the same premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the subsequent petition between the same parties is apparently barred by the principles of res subjudice/res judicata and, therefore, the continuation of both the proceedings at the same time is not permissible in the eye of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner-tenant have not been considered (Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:39:58 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3266] (3 of 7) [CW-16892/2023] by learned Rent Tribunal in their true context. Hence, the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, counsel for respondent-landlord, Mr. Dishant Verma vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and argued that as a matter of fact, the subsequent rent petition has been filed on entirely different grounds and in view of the subsequent cause of action i.e. default in payment of rent committed by the petitioner-tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the order impugned in the present writ petition is absolutely justified and in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pandurangan Vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr." reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1425.
8. Learned counsel for respondent also stated that the objection raised on behalf of petitioner regarding principle of res subjudice/res judicata under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has rightly been rejected by learned Rent Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord also apprised this Court that the earlier Rent Petition No.24/2021, originally filed by late Smt. Darshana Devi, has already been withdrawn and the respondent-landlord is only pursuing the subsequent rent petition, thus, the principles of res subjudice/res judicata are not at all applicable at this stage.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. On perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that the earlier rent petition has been filed by Late Smt. Darshna Devi on the ground of bonafide necessity and the respondent-Mukesh (Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:39:58 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3266] (4 of 7) [CW-16892/2023] Kumar has been impleaded in the capacity of her legal representative. On the other hand, a perusal of the subsequent rent petition (Annexure-2) shows that the same has been filed on entirely different grounds i.e. default in payment of rent and cause of action for the same has arisen subsequent to the filing of earlier rent petition by Late Smt. Darshna Devi. In this view of the matter, the subsequent rent petition cannot be said to have been filed on the same grounds or involving same issues between the parties.
12. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint are required to be seen to determine as to whether the same is barred by any law. A perusal of memo of rent petition no. 1/2023 does not show that the same is barred by any law. Petitioner-tenant has tried to make out a case of res subjudice/res judicata in view of the objection raised by way of subsequent pleadings, which cannot be seen at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The reliance in this regard can very well be placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pandurangan (supra), the relevant portion of which is quoted below:-
"8. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., this Court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the Court held:
"25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows:
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:39:58 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3266] (5 of 7) [CW-16892/2023] 25.1. 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.
25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application.
25.3. 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 (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit. 25.4. 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."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether Defendant 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser or not needs to be examined in detail. 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. As held by this Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows:
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:39:58 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3266] (6 of 7) [CW-16892/2023] "5. As far as scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application.
6. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the trial court and the judgment of the appellate courts. Therefore, we make it clear that 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."
10........
11........
12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96 dated 29-7-1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not have been decided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief.
13. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court in Pandurangan v. R. Jayarama Chettiar dated 20-3-2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo to its original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. "
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:39:58 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3266] (7 of 7) [CW-16892/2023]
13. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that the earlier petition preferred by Late Smt. Darshna Devi has already been withdrawn and in this view of the matter, the issue raised in the application regarding principle of res subjudice does not survive. The impugned order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned rent tribunal is absolutely justified as well as in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish any error, much less an error apparent on the face of record, or jurisdictional error being committed by the learned Tribunal below, which would warrant the interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
15. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 is upheld and the writ petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed.
16. Since the proceedings in the Rent Case No. 01/2023 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Pramila) remain stayed in the present writ petition for more than 2 years, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.
17. Stay petition and all other pending applications stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 159-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:33:57 PM) (Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:39:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)