Patna High Court – Orders
Abhay Kumar And Ors vs Shyam Ravidas And Ors on 18 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.207 of 2017
======================================================
1. Abhay Kumar, S/o Late Arjun Kumar resident of Mohalla Purani Godown
Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Gaya.
2. Veena Keshari @ Beena Keshari, w/o Sanjay Kumar Keshari resident of
Mohalla Purani Godown Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Gaya.
3. Upendra Kumar, S/o Baldeo Prasad resident of Mohalla Purani Godown,
P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.1. Sidheshwar Ravidas Son of late Shyam Ravidas, Resident of Village
Mustpura, P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District Gaya.
1.2. Karun Das Son of late Shyam Ravidas, Resident of Village Mustpura, P.O.
Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District Gaya.
1.3. Sita Devi D/o Latge Shyam Ravidas and W/o Dholi Ravidas, Resident of
Village Borma, P.S. Konch, District Gaya.
1.4. Sundari Devi D/o Late Shyam Ravidas and W/o Sheokumar Das, Resident
of Village Rauna, P.S. Konch, District Gaya.
1.5. Sunita Devi D/o Late Shyam Ravidas and W/o Sanjay Mochi, Resident of
Village Pura, P.S. Nasirganj, District- Gaya.
2. Bharat Ravidas Both sons of Late Dukhi Chamar
3. Rajendra Ravidas
4. Ganauri Ravidas Both sons of late Sukhdeo Rabidas
5. Bholi Ravidas
6.1. Nagiya Devi Widow of Late Tilak Ravidas, Resident of Village Mustpura,
P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.
6.2. Vijay Ravidas Son of late Tilak Ravidas, Resident of Village Mustpura, P.O.
Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.
6.3. Rajendra Ravidas Son of Late Tilak Ravidas, Resident of Village Mustpura,
P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.
6.4. Bhaglu Ravidas Son of Late Tilak Ravidas, Resident of Village Mustpura,
P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.
6.5. Munarik Ravidas Son of Late Tilak Ravidas, Resident of Village Mustpura,
P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.
6.6. Tetari Devi D/o late Tilak Ravidas, W/o Lakhan Ravidas, Resident of
Village, P.O. and P.S. Gurua, District- Gaya.
6.7. Munni Devi D/o late Tilak Ravidas, W/o Sudama Ravidas, Resident of
Village Mokh, P.S. Konch, District- Gaya.
7. Ram Pratap Ravidas
8. Tota Ravidas
9. Ramkrit Ravidas All sons of Late Chhatu Ravidas
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
2/20
10. Savitri Devi Widow of Late Jageshwar Ravidas, Resident of Village
1. Mastpura, P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District Gaya.
10. Ganauri Ravidas Son of Late Jageshwar Ravidas, Resident of Village
2. Mastpura, P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District Gaya.
10. Chander Ravidas Son of Late Jageshwar Ravidas, Resident of Village
3. Mastpura, P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District Gaya.
10. Ajay Ravidas Son of Late Jageshwar Ravidas, Resident of Village Mastpura,
4. P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District Gaya.
10. Meena Devi D/o Late Jageshwar Ravidas, W/o Shankar Das, Resident of
5. Village Dirama, P.O. and P.S. Cherki, District Gaya.
10. Kosum Devi D/o Late Jageshwar Ravidas, W/o Late Upendra Das, Resident
6. of Village Pathaur Bigha, P.S. Gurua, District- Gaya.
10. Phul Kumari Devi D/o Late Jageshwar Ravidas, W/o Anil Das, Resident of
7. Village Karmauni, P.S. Dobhi, District Gaya.
10. Sheela Devi D/o Late Jageshwar Ravidas, W/o Birendra Das, Resident of
8. Village Bodha Bigha, P.S. Dobhi, District Gaya.
11. Soniya Devi Widow of Late Kameshwar Ravidas, Resident of Village
1. Mustpura, P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.
11. Sanjay Das Son of late Kameshwar Ravidas, Resident of Village Mustpura,
2. P.O. Bagdaha Anchal, P.S. Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.
11. Kiran Devi D/o Late Kameshwar Ravidas, W/o Antu Ravidas, Resident of
3. Village Rajan, Sahbajpur, P.S. Chandauti, District Gaya.
11. Suggi Devi D/o Late Kameshwar Ravidas, W/o Arjun Ravidas, Resident of
4. Village Jharha Cherki, P.S. Cherki, District Gaya.
11. Baby Devi D/o late Kameshwar Ravidas, W/o Manoj Ravidas, Resident of
5. Village Antarawan, P.S. Khizersarai, District- Gaya.
12. Bhulneshar Ravidas All sons of Late Karu Ravidas
13. Karu Ravidas son of Late Bhui Ravidas
14. Ram Pravesh Ravidas
15. Suresh Ravidas Both sons of Late Churaman Ravidas
16. Madan Ravidas son of Late Ramkishun Ravidas
17. Tetar Ravidas
18. Rohan Ravidas Both sons of Late Nanhak Ravidas
19. Chandrika Ravidas son of Late Jagdish Ravidas
20. Dukhi Ravidas son of Late Binesar Ravidas All residents of village
Mastpura, P.S. Bagdaha Anchal and P.S. Bodh Gaya, Thana Number 353,
District Gaya. The Repondent no. 17 to 20 are at present residing at village
Basrahi, P.S. Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.
21. Akhauri Prem Kishore s/o Sachidanand Akhouri resident of mohalla
Patliputra Colony, Beside of Holi Cross School, P.O. and P.S. Patliputra,
Patna.
22. Alok Kumar S/o Sri Bashisht Narayan Kesari resident of Mohalla Purani
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
3/20
Godown Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District - Gaya.
23. Bashisht Narayan Kesari S/o late Lakhan Lal resident of Mohalla Purani
Godown Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Gaya.
24. Sarvan Kumar Keshri Husband of Late Ram Dulari Devi, Resident of
1. Mohalla Purai Godown Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist. Gaya.
24. Pawan Kumar Keshri Son of Late Ram Dulari Devi, Resident of Mohalla
2. Purai Godown Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist. Gaya.
24. Rahul Kumar Son of Late Ram Dulari Devi, Resident of Mohalla Purai
3. Godown Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and Dist. Gaya.
24. Arti Devi D/o Late Ram Dulari Devi, W/o Aneel Kumar, Resident of Ward
4. no. 11, Hakhauli Mirganj, Kharpakwa, Gopalganj, Bihar 841438.
24. Manisha Kesharwani D/o Late Ram Dulari Devi, W/o Neel Kamal, H/o
5. 8/39
, Ward no. 03, Sadar Sagar, Madhya Pradesh 470001.
24. Madhu Keshri W/o Sandeep Keshri, RZH -634, Gali no. 16, Raj Nagar 2,
6. Palam Colony, South West Delhi – 110077.
25. Amar Kumar s/o Sarvan Kumar Keshari resident of Mohalla Purani Godown
Lane, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Gaya.
26. Sanjay Kumar s/o Baldeo Prasad resident of Mohalla Purani Godown, P.S.
Kotwali, Town and District Gaya.
… … Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Varun Krishna Singh, Advocate
Mr. Venkatesh Kaushik, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYACAV ORDER
21 18-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Civil Revision application has been filed
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC‘) against the order dated
09.08.2017 passed in the Title Suit No. 123 of 2015 / 290 of
2015, by the learned Sub-Judge III, Gaya (hereinafter referred to
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-20264/20
as ‘Trial Court’) whereby and whereunder the learned Trial
Court has dismissed the application dated 11.04.2016 filed by
the petitioner/defendant no.2 to 5 under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the plaintiffs/
opposite parties had filed Title Suit No. 123 of 2015/290 of
2015 for declaration of title of plaintiff 1st set on the item no. 1
of schedule B and plaintiff 2nd set over item no.2 of schedule B
and Plaintiff 3rd set on item no. 3 of schedule C of the plaint
and for recovery of possession over schedule C property from
Defendants 8 & 9. Subsequently, defendants no. 2 to 5 filed
petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of
plaint on point that in para no. 23 of the plaint it has been stated
that by the plaintiffs that the sale deed executed on 12.10.1975
in favour of defendants was illegal, void and not operative. It
was further stated in the plaint at para no. 28 & 29 that the
parties in the suit had already participated in several rounds of
litigation over the said lands in dispute in the plaint including
under the provisions of Bihar Land Dispute Resolution and
Code of Criminal Procedure, where the decisions were passed
against the plaintiffs. Thus the plaint is squarely covered by the
provisions of res judicata.
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
5/20
4. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case, learned Trial Court in the petition filed by the
defendants no. 2 to 5 dated 11.04.2016, rejected the same vide
order dated 09.08.2017. Aggrieved by the impugned order the
petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision application before
this Court, assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the
said order on the ground that the learned Trial Court has failed
to properly appreciate the mandatory provisions of law and has
exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the learned Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in
rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 11.04.2016 without
appreciating the fact that the relief sought is not maintainable
and the plaintiff has no cause of action. He further submitted
that the plaintiffs have themselves stated in para no. 23 of the
plaint that registered sale deed was executed on 12.10.1975 in
favour of defendants and later stated that the said sale deed to be
treated as illegal, void and not operative, although in the relief
portion by clever drafting of the plaint, the plaintiffs
purposefully avoided to get any declaration and relief over the
registered sale deed dated 12.10.1975 since it would have
seriously prejudice the cause of action under section 3 of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
6/20
Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) read with
section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
5.i. He further submitted that a clever drafting of the
suit should always carefully examined by the Courts so that
injustice should not be done to the parties. The learned Counsel
for the petitioners states that the application under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the CPC read with Articles 58 and 65 of the Act
seeking rejection of the plaint as the reliefs sought in the suit,
were barred by limitation. He further submitted that the
plaintiffs attempted to create an illusion of a cause of action by
erroneously stating that the cause of action to file the suit arose
on 14.11.2014 when they were threatened by the defendants no.
2 to 9 that they have title over the suit property and they will be
dispossessed, although the plaintiffs have themselves stated in
the plaint that before filing of the present Title Suit they had
already filed cases under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution
bearing B.L.D.R. Case No. 249 of 2012 and 463 of 2013-2014.
It is also submitted that in the plaint at para no. 28 and 29 the
parties in the suit had already participated in several rounds of
litigation over the said lands in dispute in the plaint, under the
provisions of Bihar Land Dispute Resolution and CPC, wherein
the decisions were passed against the plaintiffs. Thus the plaint
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
7/20
is squarely covered by the principals of res judicata provided
under Section 11 of the CPC.
5.ii. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers
from patent illegality in as much as it failed to appreciate that
the plaint, on the face of its own averments, is barred by law
within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. He
further submitted that the plaintiffs have themselves admitted
the execution of the registered sale deed dated 12.10.1975 in
favour of the defendants, yet have deliberately refrained from
seeking any declaration for cancellation or setting aside of the
said sale deed. It is further submitted that such omission is not
accidental but a result of clever drafting, adopted with a view to
circumvent the bar of limitation and avoid the rigor of Section
31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
5.iii. It is further submitted that in absence of any
relief for declaration or cancellation of the registered sale deed,
the suit for declaration of title is not maintainable, particularly
when the said registered document stands adverse to the interest
of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel submitted that a registered
document carries a presumption of validity and remains
operative unless set aside by a competent court, and therefore,
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
8/20
the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to indirectly challenge the
same without seeking appropriate relief. It is submitted that the
cause of action as pleaded in the plaint is illusory and has been
artificially created by alleging a threat in the year 2014, despite
the admitted existence of prior litigation between the parties
concerning the same subject matter.
5.iv. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is
submitted that any challenge to the registered sale deed of the
year 1975 ought to have been brought within the prescribed
period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the
plaintiffs having failed to do so, cannot now seek declaration of
title after lapse of several decades. It is also submitted that the
relief for recovery of possession is equally barred under Article
65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiffs have failed to
assert their alleged title within twelve years from the date when
the possession of the defendants became adverse. Additionally,
it is submitted that in view of earlier litigations between the
parties, the present suit is also hit by the principles of res
judicata, including constructive res judicata under Section 11 of
the CPC.
5.v. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
9/20
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), reported in (2020) 7
SCC 366, wherein it has been held, inter alia, that the power
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a mandatory and
independent remedy enabling the Court to reject a plaint at the
threshold if it does not disclose a cause of action or appears
from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. It has
been further held that the Court is duty-bound to scrutinize the
averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon, and
where the litigation is manifestly vexatious or meritless, it ought
not to be permitted to proceed. Relying on the said principles, it
is submitted that the present plaint, being barred by limitation
and lacking a real cause of action, deserves to be rejected at the
very outset.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party 1st Set
submitted that the present civil revision application is wholly
misconceived and has been preferred against a well-reasoned
order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court,
whereby the application filed by defendant nos. 2 to 5 under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has rightly been rejected. Learned
counsel submitted that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
10/20
declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit land,
and the contention of the petitioners that the suit is essentially
for setting aside the sale deed dated 12.10.1975 is factually
incorrect and misleading.
6.i. Learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 1st Set further
submitted that the issue of limitation, as raised by the
petitioners, involves a mixed question of law and fact, which
cannot be decided at the threshold without leading evidence.
Learned counsel submitted that the cause of action pleaded in
the plaint discloses a triable issue, and therefore, the plaint
cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the defence taken by
the defendants. It is further submitted that the learned Trial
Court has rightly appreciated that the plea of limitation cannot
be conclusively determined at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC.
6.ii. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 1st Set next
submitted that it is a settled principle of law that while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11of the CPC,
the Court is required to confine itself strictly to the averments
made in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the
plaintiff, and the defence of the defendants cannot be looked
into. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
11/20
K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan, reported in 2021 SCC Online
SC 238, and Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of
India Staff Association, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510, wherein
it has been categorically held that the plaint can be rejected only
if it does not disclose a cause of action or appears from the
statements in the plaint itself to be barred by any law. It is,
lastly, submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the
impugned order upon correct appreciation of both facts and law,
and no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction and the present civil revision application
is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials available
on record, including the impugned order and the order sheets of
the learned Trial Court, the point that arises for determination in
the present revision is “whether the learned Trial Court erred in
law in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC seeking rejection of the plaint?”
8. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits,
it would be apposite to notice the scope of interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.
This Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the order of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
12/20
subordinate Court; interference is warranted only where the
learned Trial Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it
by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has
acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity. Thus, unless the finding recorded by the learned
Trial Court is shown to suffer from a patent error of law or
jurisdictional infirmity, this Court would be slow to substitute its
own view merely because another view is possible.
9. The contours of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the CPC have been authoritatively delineated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society
v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659,
wherein, it has been held that the revisional power is
supervisory in nature and cannot be equated with appellate
jurisdiction; interference is permissible only where the
subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction or with material
irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction. Similarly, in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh,
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated
that re-appreciation of facts or substitution of a possible view is
impermissible in revision unless the impugned order suffers
from patent illegality or perversity.
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
13/20
10. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the
principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC which have been explained in the case of
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) and Ors.,
reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has settled the principles and made the following observations:
“12.6. At this stage, the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the
merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
adverted to, or taken into consideration.
“12.7. The test for exercising the power
under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the
averments made in the plaint are taken
entirety, in conjunction with the documents
relied upon, would the same result in a
decree being passed”.
“23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is
an independent and special remedy,
wherein the court is empowered to
summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold,
without proceeding to record evidence, and
conducting a trial, on the basis of the
evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the
action should be terminated on any of the
grounds contained in this provision.
23.5. The power conferred on the court to
terminate a civil action is, however, a
drastic one, and the conditions enumerated
in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be
strictly adhered to.
23.9. In exercise of power under this
provision, the court would determine if the
assertions made in the plaint are contrary
to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for
deciding whether a case for rejecting the
plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-202614/20
defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the
merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
adverted to, or taken into consideration.
[Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr.,
(2004) 3 SCC 137]
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede &
Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.,
(2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held
that it is not permissible to cull out a
sentence or a passage, and to read it in
isolation. It is the substance, and not merely
the form, which has to be looked into. The
plaint has to be construed as it stands,
without addition or subtraction of words. If
the allegations in the plaint prima facie
show a cause of action, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations are true in fact. D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999)
3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v.
Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC
941].
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the
plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly.
vexatious and without any merit, and does
not disclose a right to sue, the court would
be justified in exercising the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is
mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint
“shall” be rejected if any of the grounds
specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out.
If the court finds that the plaint does not
disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is
barred by any law, the court has no option,
but to reject the plaint.”
11. Upon meticulous examination of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the
learned Trial Court has rightly observed, the objections raised
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
15/20
by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the suit,
particularly on the grounds of res judicata, bar of Limitation
Act,1963 involve questions which cannot be decided merely on
the basis of pleadings and require proper adjudication upon
appreciation of evidences during the stage of the trial.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Srihari Hanumandas
Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., reported in (2021) 9
SCC 99 held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is
beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, relevant
para is as under:
“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.”
13. Moreover, the issue of res judicata cannot be
decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking
rejection of plaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshav Sood
v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459
took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised
in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as under:
“5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII
of CPC 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
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-202616/20
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 Rule 11 of Order VII of
CPC. 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.”
14. It is well settled law that while considering the
prayer for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, the Court is required to confine itself to the averments
made in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein. The
defence taken by the defendants in the written statement or the
materials relied upon by them, cannot be looked into at that
stage. In the present case, the plea of res judicata raised by the
petitioner necessarily requires examination of the earlier
proceedings under the provisions of Bihar Land Dispute
Resolution and Code of Criminal Procedure and the surrounding
circumstances in which the previous proceedings were
concluded, which are matters that cannot be determined without
leading evidence.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts, the question
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
17/20
whether the present title suit is barred by the principles of res
judicata or by bar of Limitation Act cannot be conclusively
determined at the threshold merely on the basis of pleadings.
Such issues involve a mixed question of law and fact and
require consideration of the earlier proceedings and the evidence
that may be brought on record by the parties. Therefore, the
learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the issue of
maintainability should be decided along with other issues after
appreciation of evidence.
16. Upon overall consideration of the pleadings of the
parties and the grounds urged in the application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court finds that the controversy raised
by the petitioner involves disputed questions relating to plea of
limitation and principles of res judicata in Title Suit No.123 of
2015/290 of 2015, alleged absence of cause of action. In view
thereof, determination of these issues would necessarily require
examination of pleadings of both suits, scrutiny of documents,
and appreciation of evidence with respect to unity of title and
possession, nature of the property, and entitlement of the parties.
Such matters cannot be conclusively adjudicated merely on a
reading of the plaint and undoubtedly constitute mixed
questions of law and fact. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
18/20
CPC being limited and summary in nature, the learned Trial
Court has rightly refrained from embarking upon a detailed
inquiry at the threshold stage.
17. Upon a careful and meaningful reading of the
plaint, as it stands, discloses a bundle of facts constituting the
cause of action, including the assertion of interference and threat
allegedly arising in the year 2014. At this stage, the Court is
required to confine itself strictly to the averments made in the
plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs, without
embarking upon an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of
such averments. The contention of the petitioners that the suit is
essentially barred by limitation, or that the plaintiffs ought to
have sought cancellation of the registered sale deed dated
12.10.1975, would necessarily require examination of disputed
facts and the defence of the defendants, which is impermissible
while adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
18. It further appears that the question as to whether
the suit is barred by limitation, particularly in the facts of the
present case, involves determination of when the right to sue
accrued and whether the possession of the defendants had
become adverse to the plaintiffs, which are matters requiring
evidence. Similarly, the plea that the suit is hit by the principles
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
19/20
of res judicata or constructive res judicata cannot be adjudicated
in the absence of complete pleadings and materials relating to
the earlier proceedings. Such issues cannot be conclusively
determined merely on the basis of the plaint averments at the
threshold stage.
19. In view of the settled legal position that rejection
of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic power to be
exercised sparingly and only when the plaint, on the face of it, is
barred by any law, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court
has rightly refused to reject the plaint. The impugned order does
not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity
warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under
challenge, and the present civil revision application is liable to
be dismissed.
20. As settled above that in revisional jurisdiction,
interference is warranted only when the Subordinate Court has
exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested, or acted with material irregularity. The
impugned order, though concise, reflects consideration of the
relevant aspects and does not suffer from jurisdictional error or
perversity so as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.207 of 2017(21) dt.18-03-2026
20/20
CPC. Since the plaint, on its face, discloses triable issues
requiring adjudication after full-fledged trial and evaluation of
evidences, this Court is of the considered view that no such
ground is made out to invoke the revisional power of this Court.
21. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision No. 207 of
2017 stands dismissed.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Harshita/-
U