Bombay High Court

CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CIDCO), THR. IT S ADMINISTRATOR, CIDCO, AURANGABAversusHMT LTD., FOOD PROCESSING AND MACHINERY UNIT, MIDC, CHIKALTHANA, A.BAD, THR. ITS OFFICER AND ANOTHE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The trial court’s order rejecting the application to dismiss the suit on the ground of res judicata is upheld; no jurisdiction exists to dismiss the suit at the threshold on that ground.

Summary

The petitioner, CIDCO, filed a civil revision challenging the trial court’s order that rejected its application to dismiss a suit filed by the respondent on the ground of res judicata and alleged suppression of material facts. The petitioner argued that the earlier suit (Special Civil Suit No. 200/2005) had been dismissed on merits, making the present suit barred, and that the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar, noting that res judicata cannot be a ground for dismissal of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11B of the CPC, and observed that the issues in the present suit were distinct from those in the earlier suit. It held that there was no legal provision to dismiss the suit at the threshold on the basis of res judicata and found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order. Consequently, the revision was rejected, but the petitioner was permitted to raise res judicata, limitation, or other defenses at the trial stage.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to dismiss the suit on the ground of res judicata.
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interfere with the suit.
Whether the present suit is maintainable as distinct from the earlier suit dismissed in 2006.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115, Order VII Rule 11B

Subjects

res judicata
civil revision
jurisdiction
Code of Civil Procedure
mandatory injunction
perpetual injunction
Section 115 CPC
Order VII Rule 11B

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:11166
80 CRA 103 OF 2016.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

80 CRA NO. 103 OF 2016

CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
(CIDCO), THR. IT S ADMINISTRATOR, CIDCO, AURANGABA
VERSUS
HMT LTD., FOOD PROCESSING AND MACHINERY UNIT, MIDC,
CHIKALTHANA, A.BAD, THR. ITS OFFICER AND ANOTHE
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Shambhuraje V.
AGP for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 09.03.2026

PER COURT :

Heard learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh for the applicant. None appears
for respondent no. 1 despite service of notice. It was already indicated that
the matter shall be decided finally at the admission stage.

2. Revision is directed against order dated 17.06.2016 passed below Exh.
23 in Special Civil Suit No. 306/2012 rejecting application preferred by the
applicant/defendant for dismissing the suit.

3. The respondent has filed Special Civil Suit No. 306/2012 for
declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction which was
contested by the applicant. Additionally, application Exh, 23 was preferred
to dismiss the suit on the ground of principles of res judicata as well as
suppression of material facts. By impugned order it was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has canvassed various submissions
so as to point out that error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Trial
Court in rejecting the application. The present suit is sought to be rejected
on admitted facts that the respondent had filed Special Civil Suit No,
200/2005 for mandatory injunction, possession and refund of amount. It
1/2
80 CRA 103 OF 2016.odt

was dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 20.10.2006. Filing of the suit
and its dismissal are stated to be suppression of facts. My attention is also
adverted to filing of the writ petition and its withdrawal by the respondent.

5. I am guided by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter
of Pandurangan Vs. T Jayarama Chettiar and another; 2025(10) SCC 279,
which lays down that res judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11B of CPC. Though it is contended by advocate
Mr. Deshmukh that plaint is not sought to be rejected on the ground of res
judicata but suit is sought to be dismissed being not maintainable, would not
impress me for the reasons which are as follows:

(i) Neither the issues framed in the present suit has been
placed on record nor those were disclosed before the Trial
Court while arguing application Exh. 23.

(ii) Prima facie the prayers in the present suit and earlier
suit are distinct.

(iii) There is no provision in law to dismiss the suit at the
threshold on the ground of res judicata.

6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The
Trial Court has taken a reasonable view of the matter. I do not find that any
case is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

7. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. However, it would be open
for the applicant to agitate the issue of res judicata, limitation or any other
plea as is permissible in law after adducing evidence.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-

2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…