IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

<>

ON THE 11

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

CIVIL REVISION No. 1337 of 2025

<>

SMT MAYA DEVI

<>

Versus

SMT SUGAN SHARMA AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Madhu Sudan Shrivastava - Advocate for applicant.

Shri C.P.Singh - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER

<>

1. The present civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 17/10/2025

passed by 19th District Judge, Gwalior in RCSA No.440/2025, whereby the

application filed by applicant/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read

with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of present revision, in short, are

that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) instituted a civil suit for declaration

and permanent injunction against the present applicant and other defendants.

The present applicant/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit is barred by the principle of res

judicata in view of compromise decree dated 22/12/2021 passed in Civil Suit

No. 39-A/2010 titled Rajendra Sharma vs. Chandan Singh & Others. It was

submitted that in the said earlier suit, the dispute regarding the property had

1 CR-1337-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5518

already been settled by way of compromise, and therefore, the present suit

was not maintainable. The plaintiffs opposed the said application contending

that the present cause of action is distinct and that the issues raised in the

present suit are not barred by res judicata.

3. The learned trial Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the

application.

4. Assailing the said order, learned counsel for applicant submits

that the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata in view of compromise

decree dated 22/12/2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2010 titled Rajendra

Sharma vs. Chandan Singh & Others. It is submitted that in the said earlier

suit, the dispute regarding the property had already been settled by way of

compromise, and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable. It is

submitted that the present suit is barred under Section 11 CPC and liable to

be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

6. From bare perusal of the plaint averments, it is found that the suit in

respect of the disputed land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint is filed, inter

alia, pleading that the property is a joint property of the plaintiffs and

defendants No. 1 and 2. The compromise decree which has been relied upon

by the applicant to submit that the dispute has been settled between the

parties, filed as Annexure P-5, reveals that in the said civil suit some other

relief has been sought by defendant No.3 against the predecessor-in-title,

Chandan Singh. The parties to the present suit are different, and the lis which

has been decided between the parties by way of compromise is also distinct

2 CR-1337-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5518

from the present suit. The subject matter in the compromise decree is 8

bighas of land of Survey Nos. 100, 101, 103, 104 and 105 of village Salupura

Piproli District Gwalior. However, in the present suit, the subject matter is

32 bighas of land. Thus, from the perusal of the compromise decree, the

dispute cannot be said to have been settled between the same parties.

7. It is trite law that while deciding an application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are germane (see Nusli Neville Wadia

Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. ((2020) 6 SCC 557).

8. It is seen from the application that the questions of res

judicata which is raised by the applicant/defendant do not prima facie

establishes that the suit is barred by law from bare perusal averments of the

plaint.

9. The Hon. Apex court vide order dated 12.9.2023 passed in Civil

<>

appeal No.5841/2023 in the case of Keshav Sood Vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood

<>

and others

<>

, has held that question of res judicata cannot be decided under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and held as under :-

"4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, we find that the plea of res judicata could

not have been gone into on an application made by the

appellant under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. Apart

from pleadings in the earlier suit, several other

documents which were relied upon by the appellant in

his application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC were

required to be gone into for deciding the issue of res

judicata.

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

3 CR-1337-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5518

(DEEPAK KHOT)

<>

JUDGE

<>

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."

10. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court

below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while rejecting the

application. This Court has not found any manifest illegality, material

irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting

interference under Section 115 CPC.

11. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed

<>

.

Aman

4 CR-1337-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5518