Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonama Ram vs Mohan Lal (2026:Rj-Jd:12192) on 13 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:12192]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2436/2026
1. Poonama Ram S/o Shri Javanta Ram, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Village Dedva, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
2. Virdha Ram S/o Shri Javanta Ram, Aged About 63 Years,
R/o Village Dedva, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
3. Sonaram S/o Javanta Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Village Dedva, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
4. Harchand S/o Shri Javanta Ram, Aged About 80 Years, R/
o Village Dedva, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
5. Harlal S/o Shri Javanta Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Village Dedva, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Amlu Ji, R/o Village Dedva, Tehsil
Sanchore, District Jalore.
2. Punama Ram S/o Shri Amlu Ji, R/o Village Dedva, Tehsil
Sanchore, District Jalore.
3. Kaluram S/o Shri Amlu Ji, R/o Village Dedva, Tehsil
Sanchore, District Jalore.
4. Kanaram S/o Shri Hapuram Ji, R/o Village Dedva, Tehsil
Sanchore, District Jalore.
5. Hemaram S/o Shri Hapuram Ji, R/o Village Dedva, Tehsil
Sanchore, District Jalore.
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar Sanchore,
District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Lal.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order 13/03/2026
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 26.03.2025 passed by Court of Learned Assistant Collector cum (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:35:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:42:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12192] (2 of 6) [CW-2436/2026] Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahpura, whereby rejecting application of petitioner-defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Petitioners have also challenged validity of order dated 13.01.2026 passed by Learned Board of Revenue, whereby revision petition preferred by petitioners challenging said order dated 26.03.2025 was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, factual background giving rise to present writ petition are as follows. Respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit under Sections 88 and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, for declaration of khatedari rights and for seeking partition.
3. In said suit, petitioner-defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stating therein that on an earlier occasion, plaintiff's father had filed a revenue suit, namely, suit no. 12/89, with regard to the same land, which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1990. It was submitted that said judgment and decree dated 19.11.1990 had attained finality and operated as res-judicata against present suit. Accordingly, on said ground, defendants prayed for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, learned trial Court, vide its order dated 26.03.2025, rejected said application of petitioner-defendants, holding that objection of res judicata is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Revision petition filed against said order dated 26.03.2025 was also dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.01.2026. Hence, present writ petition.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:35:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:42:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12192] (3 of 6) [CW-2436/2026]
5. The precise controversy involved in matter at hand is whether a suit / plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the sole ground of applicability of principle of res-judicata.
6. Law in this regard is well settled. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1425 has held that at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of plaint are required to be examined to determine whether or not the same is barred by any law.
7. In contrast, objection based on res-judicata generally arises from the pleadings contained in written statement, which ordinarily cannot be considered at the stage of deciding application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. Relevant paras of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pandurangan (supra) are extracted 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:
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 (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:35:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:42:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12192] (4 of 6) [CW-2436/2026] 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:
"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 (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:35:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:42:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12192] (5 of 6) [CW-2436/2026] 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."
9. In view of thus settled position of law, order dated 26.03.2025 passed by learned Court of Assistant Collector cum (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:35:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:42:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:12192] (6 of 6) [CW-2436/2026] Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahpura, as well as order 13.01.2026 passed by Board of Revenue are absolutely justified.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to establish any error apparent on the face of record or any jurisdictional error committed by learned Courts below which would warrant interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
11. In this view of the matter, impugned orders dated 26.03.2025 and 13.01.2026 are upheld, and present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
12. However, it shall be open for petitioners to move appropriate application before learned Trial Court for requesting framing of additional issue concerning applicability of doctrine of res-judicata. In case, any such application if filed, same shall be considered by learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Furthermore, in case, such an issue is framed, same shall be decided on merits after due consideration of evidence and other material available on record.
13. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 184-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:35:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:42:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)