As per case facts, the appellant purchased a property in 1998 and later, due to an advocate-commissioner's inspection for execution of a decree, learned that the defendant had obtained an ... ex parte decree for partition in 1997 against the appellant's predecessor-in-title and others. The appellant filed the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, specifically contending that the earlier ex parte decree was collusive, fraudulently obtained, and passed by a court without territorial jurisdiction, and therefore not binding on him. The Trial Court, upheld by the High Court, dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata. The question arose whether the plea of res judicata could be adjudicated and upheld under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, particularly when the plaintiff's suit avers fraud and collusion in obtaining the previous decree. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the plaint. The Court clarified that the question of res judicata, especially when interwoven with specific allegations of fraud, collusion, and lack of jurisdiction against the prior decree, requires considering evidence beyond the plaint's averments and is therefore beyond the limited scope of an Order VII Rule 11 application. The matter was remitted for an expeditious trial on all issues, including the plea of res judicata.