Babu Lal @ Babu Lal Soni And Another vs Randhir Singh And 5 Others on 15 July, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Babu Lal @ Babu Lal Soni And Another vs Randhir Singh And 5 Others on 15 July, 2026

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Neutral Citation No. – 2026:AHC-LKO:46726

SPONSORED

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 3640 of 2026

Babu Lal @ Babu Lal Soni And Another

…..Petitioner(s)

Versus

Randhir Singh And 5 Others

…..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)

:

Vijay Lakshmi Singh, Sushil Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Respondent(s)

:

Anand Dubey, Prateek Yadav

Court No. – 7

HON’BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anand Dubey, who appeared along with Shri Prateek Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):

“(i) to issue an order or direction to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the learned Court of Additional District Judge, First, Ambedkar Nagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 32/2025- Babu Lal and another versus Randhir Singh and others, under Section – 35 Rule 12/Form 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, contained as Annexure No. – 1, in the interest of justice.

(ii). to issue an order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Court of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Rent Authority, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 924/2024 (Computerized Case No. D202404040000924) – Randhir Singh versus Babu Lal and others, under Section 21(2) of The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, contained as Annexure No.- 2, in the interest of justice.”

3. Vide impugned order dated 23.07.2025, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Prescribed Authority, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No.924 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D202404040000924 (Randhir Singh versus Babu Lal and others) under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (in short “Act of 2021”) decided the issue of res-judicata raised by the present petitioners. By the impugned order dated 23.07.2025, the Prescribed Authority held that the application under Section 21(1) of the Act of 2021 is not hit by the principle of res judicata. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.07.2025 is extracted herein under :

“????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ????-21 (1) ????? ?????? ????? ???????? (???????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????, 1972) ???????? ????, ???? ??? ?????? 01/07 ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??, ?? ??????? ???? ?????????? ?????/????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? 02-12-2009 ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???, ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???, ????? ???? ??? ?????? 1/07 ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??, ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? (Res judicata) ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ????????? ???? ???????? ????-21 (2) ?0???0 ????? ????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? 2021 ? ???? 7(1) ?????? ????? ????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? 2021) ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??, ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??, ?? ? ?? ??????? ??? ??, ?? ? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ????-21 (1) ????? ?????? ????? ???????? (???????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????, 1972 ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? 02-12-2009 ??? ???????? ????????? ???? ???????? ????-21 (2) ?0???0 ????? ????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? 2021 ? ???? 7 (1) ?????? ????? ????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? 2021) ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????/??? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ?????/????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? 02-12-2009 ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ????? (Res judicata) ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? 02-12-2024 ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???

????

??? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? 02-12-2024 ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? 04-08-2025 ?? ??? ???”

4. Vide the impugned order dated 27.05.2026, the Additional District Judge-I, Ambedakr Nagar (in short “Appellate Authority”) dismissed the Civil Appeal No.32/2025 (Babu Lal and others Vs. Randhir Singh and others), which was filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the order dated 23.07.2025, passed by the Rent Authority. Thus, the Appellate Authority vide the order dated 27.05.2026 affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23.07.2025.

5. For coming to the conclusion on the issue as to whether any interference is required in the impugned order by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court considered the following facts :

(i) Brijesh Pratap Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the private opposite parties, filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short “Act No.13 of 1972”). Copy of this application is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the present petition.

(ii) Perusal of the application, aforesaid, indicates that the application filed by Brijesh Pratap Singh was registered as Regular Case No.1 of 2007. This case was filed seeking permission from the concerned authority for demolition and reconstruction of the premises in issue i.e. House No.4/2/286 situated within the jurisdiction of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jalalpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

(iii) It is to be noted that the premises aforesaid was purchased by Brijesh Pratap Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the private opposite parties, on 04.02.1992. This fact is not in dispute.

(iv) The Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar rejected the application registered as Regular Case No.1 of 2007 preferred by Brijesh Pratap Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the private opposite parties, under Section 21 (1) of the Act No.13 of 1972 vide order dated 02.12.2009. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.12.2009 is extracted herein under : “????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????

???????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? 1992 ??? ???? ??????????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ? ??? ????

????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???

???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??????? ???? 21 (1) ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? 4 ????? 1992 ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???, ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???????

???????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????….. ??? ?????? ??, ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? 2, 3 ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??, ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????????0-1 ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? 4 ??, ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? 22.1.07 ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? 6.2.2007 ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????????-1 ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????-21 (1) ?????? ???????? ???????? (??????? ?? ????? ???? ?????) ???? 1972 ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????

????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????????? ??? ???????????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? 17 ??? ????? ?? ?????????? ??? ???????????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??

1. ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???

2. ???? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???

3. ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???

4. ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???

???????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????????? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? 160 ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?? 02 ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????????0-1 ?????? ????? ?? ??????????? ???? ?? ??? ??? (not legible) ???? ????????0-2 ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? 7 ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???, ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????, ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ???

???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????????0-1 ?? ???? ???????????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? 17 ?? ??????? ?????? ???

?????????? ??? ?? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? 7? ??? ?????? 8? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????

??????? ?? ???? 17 ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????, ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????

???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? (not legible) ???? ????????? 1 ?? ???? ???????????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? 79 ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? 1992 ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? 23? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??0 65/- ?? ?? ?? ????? 2009 ?? ?????? 09 ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? (??? ???) ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???????????? ????? ??, ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ???

?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ???? 21 ???? 1 ?? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? 21 (1) ?? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? 17 ??? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???????????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ???????? 3 ?????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ??????? ????-21 (1) ?????? ???????? ??????? (???????? ?? ????? ???? ?????) ???? 1972 ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???

????

???? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???”

(v) The above quoted portion of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 02.12.2009 indicates that Brijesh Pratap Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties, failed to established his case before the Prescribed Authority by adducing the appropriate evidence based upon which the Prescribed Authority could have conclucded that the building is in dilapidated condition and therefore demolition and reconstruction is required.

(vi) After passing of the above referred order dated 02.12.2009, an application under Section 21(2) of the Act of 2021 was filed by the opposite party No.1-Randhir Singh S/o Brijesh Pratap Singh, who was substituted in Regular Case No. 1 of 2007 in which the order dated 02.12.2009 was passed. As per paragraph 6 of this application registered as Case No. 924 of 2024, copy of which is on record as Annexure No.9 to the instant petition indicates that the application under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 was filed on the ground of bonafide need and getting the building repaired. Paragraph 6 of the application is extracted herein under :

“????-6 ???? ?? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? 16-6-2000 ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? 29/2000 ???????? 16-8-2000 ???????-2 ? ???????-3 ?? ??? ??? ???????? ????????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???”

6. This Court also considered the principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Kishore Vs. Brahm Prakash (2023) 19 SCC 244 for applying the doctrine/principle of res judicata. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted herein under : “24. Before proceeding to refer to precedents on the interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC, we find it imperative to refer to Section 11 of CPC which defines res judicata: ?11. Res judicata.?No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.? 25. Section 11CPC enunciates the rule of res judicata : a court shall not try any suit or issue in which the matter that is directly in issue has been directly or indirectly heard and decided in a ?former suit?. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudicating on the issue of res judicata it is necessary that the same issue (that is raised in the suit) has been adjudicated in the former suit. It is necessary that we refer to the exercise taken up by this Court while adjudicating on res judicata, before referring to res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. 26. R.C. Lahoti, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for a two-Judge Bench in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava [V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551] , discussed the plea of res judicata and the particulars that would be required to prove the plea. The Court held that it is necessary to refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the judgment of the ?former suit? while adjudicating on the plea of res judicata : (SCC pp. 556-57, paras 11 & 13) ?11. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause.

* * *

13. Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. Maybe, in a given case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed out in Syed Mohammad Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa [Syed Mohammad Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, (1976) 4 SCC 780] the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. It is risky to speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 101 : (1964) 7 SCR 831 : AIR 1964 SC 1810] placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council 13. [Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council, 1888 SCC OnLine PC 17 : (1887-88) 15 IA 186 : ILR (1889) 16 Cal 173] pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot be determined without ascertaining what were the matters in issue in the previous suit and what was heard and decided. Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit.?

(emphasis supplied)

27. This Court in V. Rajeshwari [V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551] observed that the rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel based on the public policy of achieving finality to litigation. The plea of res judicata is founded on proof of certain facts and then applying the law to the facts so found. It is, therefore, necessary that the foundation for the belief must be laid in the pleadings and then the issue must be framed and tried. 28. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the decisions that particularly deal with the question whether res judicata can be the basis or ground for rejection of the plaint. In Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa [Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661] , the trial Judge had allowed an application for rejection of the plaint in a suit for partition and this was affirmed [Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 819] by the High Court. S.B. Sinha, J. speaking for the two-Judge Bench examined the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC and observed : (Kamala case [Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661] , SCC pp. 668-69, paras 21-22) ?21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another. 22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision.?

(emphasis supplied)

The Court further held : (Kamala case [Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661] , SCC p. 669, paras 23-25) ?23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code. The question involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that stage. 24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say that although the same discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a law. 25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad principle which can be culled out therefrom is that the court at that stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for rejection of plaint should be entertained.?

(emphasis supplied)

29. The above view has been consistently followed in a line of decisions of this Court. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612] , P. Sathasivam, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for a two-Judge Bench, observed that : (SCC pp. 713-14, paras 10-11) ?10. ? It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the court has no other option except to reject the same. A reading of the above provision also makes it clear that power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. 11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557] , in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under : (SCC p. 560, para 9) ?9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC at any stage of the suit-before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.? It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184] and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100]” 30. Similarly, in Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] , an application was moved under Order 7 Rule 11CPC claiming rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata. The trial Judge dismissed the application and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in revision by the High Court. A.K. Sikri, J. while affirming the judgment [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 12071] of the High Court, held : (Soumitra Kumar Sen case [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] , SCC p. 649, para 9) ?9. In the first instance, it can be seen that insofar as relief of permanent and mandatory injunction is concerned that is based on a different cause of action. At the same time that kind of relief can be considered by the trial court only if the plaintiff is able to establish his locus standi to bring such a suit. If the averments made by the appellant in their written statement are correct, such a suit may not be maintainable inasmuch as, as per the appellant it has already been decided in the previous two suits that Respondent 1-plaintiff retired from the partnership firm much earlier, after taking his share and it is the appellant (or appellant and Respondent 2) who are entitled to manage the affairs of M/s Sen Industries. However, at this stage, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, the defence in the written statement cannot be gone into. One has to only look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. It is possible that in a cleverly drafted plaint, the plaintiff has not given the details about Suit No. 268 of 2008 which has been decided against him. He has totally omitted to mention about Suit No. 103 of 1995, the judgment wherein has attained finality. In that sense, the plaintiff-Respondent 1 may be guilty of suppression and concealment, if the averments made by the appellant are ultimately found to be correct. However, as per the established principles of law, such a defence projected in the written statement cannot be looked into while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC.?

(emphasis supplied)

Referring to Kamala [Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661] , the Court further observed that : (Soumitra Kumar Sen case [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] , SCC p. 650, para 12) ?12. ? The appellant has mentioned about the earlier two cases which were filed by Respondent 1 and wherein he failed. These are judicial records. The appellant can easily demonstrate the correctness of his averments by filing certified copies of the pleadings in the earlier two suits as well as copies of the judgments passed by the courts in those proceedings. In fact, copies of the orders passed in judgment and decree dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), copy of the judgment dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) upholding the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as well as copy of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division in Suit No. 268 of 2008 are placed on record by the appellant. While deciding the first suit, the trial court gave a categorical finding that as per MoU signed between the parties, Respondent 1 had accepted a sum of Rs 2,00,000 and, therefore, the said suit was barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. In a case like this, though recourse to Order 7 Rule 11CPC by the appellant was not appropriate, at the same time, the trial court may, after framing the issues, take up the issues which pertain to the maintainability of the suit and decide the same in the first instance. In this manner the appellant, or for that matter the parties, can be absolved of unnecessary agony of prolonged proceedings, in case the appellant is ultimately found to be correct in his submissions.?

(emphasis supplied)

31. This Court in Soumitra Kumar Sen [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] was examining a case where the defendant had moved an application before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC requesting the court to reject the plaint on the ground of res judicata. The Courts below had rejected such a prayer upon which the defendant had approached this Court. This Court, referring to its various judgments on the point, upheld such orders observing that if the averments made by the appellant in the written statement are correct, the suit may not be maintainable. However, at this stage, as rightly held by this Court, the defence in the written statement cannot be gone into. One has to look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. 32. While holding that ?recourse to Order 7 Rule 11? by the appellant was not appropriate, this Court observed that the trial court may, after framing the issues, take up the issues which pertain to the maintainability of the suit and decided them in the first instance. The Court held that this course of action would help the appellant avoid lengthy proceedings. 33. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC can be summarised as follows: (i) 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; (ii) The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application; (iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (a) the ?previous suit? is decided, (b) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (c) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (d) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and (iv) 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. (See : Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat [Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99 : (2021) 4 SCC (Civ) 489] ) 34. The general principle of res judicata under Section 11CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. 35. In the present case, before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into. Whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up. Powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC under such circumstances would not be available. The High Court therefore, committed an error in rejecting the plaint.”

7. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid including para 33 of the report, this Court finds that no interference is required in the impugned order as the issue in the earlier case and in the pending case is not the same/similar.

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

July 15, 2026

ML/-