Bar to Sue vs Suit Barred by Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Why Order II Rule 2 Cannot Be Used to Reject a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d)

S. Valliammai and Ors. Vs. S. Ramanathan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 372, MANU/SC/0362/2026

Decided On: 16.04.2026

Factual background in brief

The litigation arises from a Chettiar family dispute where the aged parents alleged that their advocate son exerted pressure and coercion to grab properties and bank deposits. The father and mother first filed O.S. No. 4722/2012 (the “first suit”) at Chennai seeking permanent injunction to protect (i) the residential Harrington Road property and (ii) the Standard Chartered Bank account, alleging intimidation, assault and coercion leading to execution of a settlement deed dated 04.11.2011.

Print Page

Whether plaint can be rejected if it is barred by Judgment of supreme court?

 The question as to whether the expression "law" occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code includes "judicial decisions of the Apex Court" came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Virender Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., MANU/UP/1914/2014 : 2014(9) ADJ 1506. The Division Bench dealt with the issue in detail in the context of several decisions on the subject and held in para 15 as under:

15. Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An authoritative judgment of the Courts including higher judiciary is also law.

 In the light of the above discussion, in the considered view of this Court, it cannot be said that the term "barred by any law" occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code, ought to be read to mean only the law codified in a legislative enactment and not the law laid down by the Courts in judicial precedents. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11345 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23605 of 2015)

Decided On: 07.09.2017

Bharvagi Constructions and Ors. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4428

Print Page

Whether plaint can be rejected if suit is barred by law?

In the light of aforesaid legal position, the question is
whether the plaint  is liable to be rejected  under  provisions of
Order   VII   Rule   11(a)   and/or   (d)   of   the   Code.     In   S.C.S.
No.5055/2012   it   has   been   pleaded   that   S.C.S.   No.581/2006
came to be compromised and this compromise dated 24­10­2008
was null and void.  The pleadings to that effect can be found in
paras 31 to 33 of the plaint.  If these are the pleadings in S.C.S.
No.5055/2012, it is obvious that this suit would be barred in viewof provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code.  The pleadings in
paras 31 to 33 of S.C.S. No.5055/2012 are by themselves sufficientto attract provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.   The
judgment   in   the   case   of  Bhauram   (supra)  therefore,   does   not
support the stand of the non­applicant No.1 as only the averments
in the plaint have been considered while deciding the application
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. It will, therefore, have to
be held that in view of aforesaid averments appearing in S.C.S.
No.5055/2012 and  on a plain reading of the plaint, the suit itself

is barred by law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2014
APPLICANT:         
(Ori. Deft. No.1)
Sushil S/o Sohanlal Agrawal

 Vs
                                                                                   Harishankar   Ramnivas   Sharma,

CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED:  26­-02­-2016.
Citation:2016(4) MHLJ 904

Print Page