The Court held that a second petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be dismissed by simply citing the pendency or rejection of a previous Order 7 Rule 11 petition if the grounds are not identical. Contentious grounds requiring evidence must be decided at trial, following established precedent. The judgment upholds existing law and is binding on subordinate courts, offering practical guidance for handling multiple preliminary objections under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in civil litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRP/41/2025 of M/S. Blueline Resorts Pvt. Ltd., BBSR Vs M/S. Hotel Sea Point Pvt. Ltd., BBSR |
| CNR | ODHC010688072025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure—Order 7 Rule 11 (Rejection of plaint), Specific Relief Act, Limitation Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that rejection of a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC solely on the ground that a previous petition under the same provision was made is unsustainable when the grounds are different. Where the first petition was based on res judicata and the subsequent one on limitation, the latter must be considered on its own merit. Moreover, if the objections require detailed examination of facts supported by evidence, those questions should be raised in the written statement for proper adjudication at trial and cannot be the basis for rejection of plaint at the threshold. This approach ensures contentious issues are addressed based on parties’ evidence, enhancing procedural fairness. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on judicial precedent which holds that issues requiring evidence should not be disposed of under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and must be decided at trial. Contentious matters and objections are best resolved after framing issues and leading evidence, not at the threshold stage through a summary rejection of plaint. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Defendant’s first Order 7 Rule 11 CPC petition (on res judicata) was dismissed; a second petition (on limitation) was subsequently filed and dismissed by the trial court as being on “similar grounds.” Both parties admitted the grounds differed. The defendant has yet to file a written statement in the suit (C.S. No.462 of 2017), which has been pending for eight years. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, allowing the defendant to raise all grounds in the written statement, to be decided as issues at trial. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Orissa |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in other States, and may be cited before the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A subsequent petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, based on grounds distinct from a prior petition, cannot be dismissed merely because an earlier application was made and rejected.
- Contentious issues or objections requiring adjudication on evidence—such as limitation—should not be grounds for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11; they must be raised in pleadings and decided at trial.
- The trial court is required to frame issues relating to such objections and adjudicate them after both sides have led evidence.
- Lawyers should ensure that procedural objections based on factual disputes are pleaded in the written statement if not conclusively determinable at the threshold.
- The judgment reinforces the principle that technical rejections at the preliminary stage should not replace a full trial where issues of fact exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined whether a second petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be dismissed on the ground of a previous petition under the same provision, even when each application is based on different legal grounds.
- The trial court had dismissed the defendant’s second Order 7 Rule 11 application, incorrectly treating it as based on the same ground as the earlier petition.
- Both counsel agreed that the grounds for the two applications were, in fact, different—first on res judicata, second on limitation.
- The Court cited and relied upon multiple precedents from Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Allahabad, Bombay, and Rajasthan High Courts which consistently hold that issues requiring adjudication on evidence are not fit for summary rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
- It held that all such grounds should be raised in the written statement, upon which the trial court must frame issues and decide after considering evidence.
- The impugned order was set aside, permitting the defendant to raise all relevant objections in the written statement; trial court was directed to frame and decide relevant issues, upholding established jurisprudence and ensuring expeditious disposal according to Supreme Court guidelines for old suits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Earlier Order 7 Rule 11 rejection was on the ground of res judicata, not limitation; the second petition presents new grounds.
- Trial court erred in treating the petitions as based on “similar grounds”.
- Grounds such as limitation should be considered or at least allowed to be raised as issues.
Respondent
- Conceded that the earlier and second Order 7 Rule 11 petitions were based on different grounds.
- Suit is pending for eight years; written statement has not been filed by the defendant till date.
Factual Background
The dispute arose out of a civil suit (C.S. No.462 of 2017) between the parties. The defendant had first filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata, which was dismissed. The defendant then filed a second petition under Order 7 Rule 11, this time citing limitation, which the trial court rejected as being on “similar grounds” to the first. Both parties confirmed that the two petitions were based on different objections. The written statement was yet to be filed by the defendant, despite the suit being more than eight years old.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: The Court analyzed the provision for rejection of plaint, emphasizing its application is limited to cases where the plaint itself on its face shows lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, or other legal bars not requiring factual determination.
- Section 6(2) Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Sections 3, 29(2) Limitation Act, 1963: Raised as grounds in the petition, but the Court held that when such statutory bars involve disputed facts, they are to be adjudicated after evidence, not upon a preliminary application under Order 7 Rule 11.
- Emphasized that objections necessitating evidence must be pleaded and tried as issues, not summarily rejected at the outset.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed that all grounds previously raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be raised in the written statement, and that the trial court frame and decide the resulting issues after evidence.
- Reinforced the need for expeditious disposal of old suits as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing judicial precedent and clarifies procedure under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC regarding multiple or successive preliminary objections.