Supreme Court: A fresh application seeking a rejection of a plaint, having the same substantive issue, is not maintainable despite being filed by a different applicant.

The High Court, in the impugned order, sought to avoid the application of res judicata on the ground that the first application was filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, whereas the second was filed by the legal representatives of Defendant No. 4. This reasoning does not commend itself to us. All Defendants are sons (or their legal representatives) of the same propositus. They share a common interest: they defend the same Partition Deed, resist the same suit for partition, and assert the same plea that the daughters have no right to the suit properties. They litigate under the same title within the meaning of Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as reproduced above.{Para 37}

38. In Singhai Lal Chand Jain v. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Panna and Ors.   MANU/SC/0323/1996 : 1996:INSC:266 : (1996) 3 SCC 149, this Court clarified that if litigation was conducted bona fide to protect a common interest, the decision operates as res judicata against all persons interested in that right. In the present case, the Defendants collectively resisted the suit and participated in the first Order VII Rule 11 proceedings. The legal representatives of Defendant No. 4 cannot be heard to say that the 2013 order does not bind them merely because their predecessor did not file the application that gave rise to that order. The interest asserted is indivisible; the parties litigate under the same title.

39. We may further observe that Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit." The Respondents' submission that the two applications were filed under different sub-clauses of Order VII Rule 11, the first under clause (d) alone and the second under clauses (a), (b) and (d) is of no consequence. The ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action [clause (a)] or is defective [clause (b)] could have been, and indeed ought to have been, raised in the first application. The mere invocation of additional sub-clauses in the second application does not take the matter outside the scope of res judicata. The substance of the issue, whether the plaint should be rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act, remains the same. A party cannot circumvent the finality of an adverse order by re-framing the same challenge under a different procedural provision.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7939 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23709 of 2024)

B.S. Lalitha and Ors. Vs. Bhuvanesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Augustine George Masih and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Augustine George Masih, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 499, MANU/SC/0483/2026

Dated: MAY 15, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page