LexPANDURANGAN versus T. JAYARAMA CHETTIAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 488 : 2025 INSC 825 Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7743 of 2025) 14 July 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether objection of res judicata can be taken to bar the suit u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, R.11 – Rejection of plaint – Appellant purchased a disputed property from one HB, who had in turn purchased it from JA – Later, appellant came to know that defendant no.1, claiming to be a co-owner filed a suit for partition against JA and others and also secured an ex parte decree in his favour – Compelled by these circumstances, the appellant instituted the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction – Defendant filed an I.A. u/Or.VII, R.11 of CPC contending that the suit is barred by res judicata as the earlier ex parte decree has attained finality – District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate allowed defendant no.1’s objection – A Civil Revision Petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: The objection of res judicata cannot be taken to bar the suit u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC – Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant no. 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser or not need 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 – From the order passed by the Trial Court it is apparent that there is neither consideration nor analysis of the case set up by the appellant in plaint – This Court clarifies that no * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 489 Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. opinion is expressed on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No.298/96 dated 29.07.1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, this Court holds that enquiry into this question could not have been decided u/Or.VII, R.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. [Paras 9, 10, 12] Case Law Cited Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., 2021 INSC 387 : [2021] 8 SCR 387 : (2021) 9 SCC 99; Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2023 decided by the Supreme Court – relied on. V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava [2003] Supp. 6 SCR 927 : (2004) 1 SCC 551 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Order VII, Rule 11 CPC; Plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC; Ex parte decree; Fraudulent decree. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7743 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRPMD No. 1454 of 2014 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: G.Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, C.Adhikesavan, Ms. Ratna Priya Pradhan, Harikrishnan P.v, C.kavin Ananth. Advs. for the Respondents: V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv., S. Rajappa, R Gowrishankar, Ms. G Dhivyasri, Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Nanchil J Deekshith. 490 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Delay Condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Madras1 dismissing the Civil Revision Petition against the order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo2 allowing Defendant No. 1’s objection to the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code3 on the ground of res judicata. For the reasons to follow, we have allowed the appeal and held that the objection of res judicata cannot be taken to bar the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. 4. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant had purchased the disputed property from one Mr. Hussain Babu in 1998, who had in turn purchased it from Ms. Jayam Ammal in 1991. Appellant contends that while being in peace
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.