Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Purbey v. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.176 of 2017 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Purbey .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Rameshwar Prasad Yadav & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 02-02-2017 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Bajarangi Lal for the petitioner.

Perused the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned Munsif, Rosera in Title Suit No. 03 of 2011, whereby the learned Munsif has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Learned counsel Mr. Bajarangi Lal for the petitioner submitted that the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. Earlier the suit had already been decided between the parties with respect to the subject-matter, but the plaintiff has suppressed this fact and has filed the present suit. The defendants in the written statement have clearly raised the question of res judicata. Therefore, under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the court below should have

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.176 of 2017 (2) dt.02-02-2017 2/2 decided the question of res judicata and should have rejected the plaint.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & ors. reported in 2015 (8) SCC 331 at paragraph 5 has held that rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. Thus, in view of the settled provision of law, I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this civil misc. application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Rakhi U