1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal arises from an order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in C.R.P. No.331/2023 by which the defendants'(respondents herein) revision against the order of the trial court rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') was allowed and the plaint of O.S. No.215 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the suit in question) was rejected.

4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The suit in question was instituted by the appellant for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants and their agents, family members etc. from interfering in any manner in the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The suit schedule property therein was described as under:

                   "SI.No.73/3, assessment no. 171, 172, house no.1. Junger No. 258/2005-06 measuring east-west 150 feet, north-south 48 feet which is house-cum-vacant space comprising of tiles roofed house east-west 36 feet, north-south 40 feet and the vacant space consist of firewood storage Hibiscus flowers plants, 09 nos. of coconut trees bounded on east by sy.no.1. west by Road earlier north by road south Siddappa's share situate at Dypasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur taluk.

5. Defendants filed application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, on the following grounds:

                   (a) that the question of possession of the suit schedule property stood decided in previous suit (i.e., Original Suit No.175/2011) inter se parties and, therefore, the current suit was barred by res judicata; and

                   (b) that there had been suppression of fact.

6. The Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application, inter alia, on the ground that question of res judicata is an issue which needs to be pleaded and proved and, therefore, on that plea, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. The Court further held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and, therefore, it is not liable to be rejected at the threshold.

7. On the revision preferred by the defendant(s) against the order of the trial court, the High Court examined the matter at some length, took into consideration materials other than the plaint alone, and came to the conclusion that finding(s) returned in Original Suit No.175/2011 established that the plaintiff of the suit in question was not in possession of the suit property and, therefore, the suit was barred by principle of res judicata.

8. Impugning the order of the High Court, the submission on behalf of the appellant is that the prayer to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be addressed by considering the plaint averments only. If the plaint, inter alia, does not disclose a cause of action, or the suit is otherwise barred by law, it may be rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant then took us through the description of suit schedule property in O.S. No.175/2011 to canvass that it is different from the one described in the plaint schedule of the suit in question. In that light, it is submitted, the suit in question is not barred by principle of res judicata. The suit schedule property in O.S.No.175/ 2011 is described as under:

                   The suit schedule property situated at Dyapasandra Village, within the Santhehalli Gram Panchayath limit's bearing Kaneshmari No. 174 Vacant space measuring East-West 147 feet and North-South: 120 feet consisting of 5 Ankanas, tiled roofed house following these 25 coconut trees, one Tarmind tree, One Pomegranate tree, One Eucalyptus tree and one mud well bounded:

                   East by: Ramadevaru Inamthi land,

                   West by: At present Road after Thoti Yellapa now Dodda Muniyappa,

                   North by: Road,

                   South by: Pollappa's House"

9. Comparing the description of suit schedule property as mentioned in the plaint of the suit in question with what is mentioned in the plaint of the earlier suit (i.e., O.S. No.275/2011), it was strenuously urged on behalf of the appellant that the subject properties being described differently, question of the suit in question being barred by principle of res judicata does not arise. Besides, the question of possession requires fresh consideration in terms claimed in the suit, therefore, the suit for injunction cannot be held barred by principle of res judicata.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents submitted that the suit schedule property though may appear different in the two schedules of the two plaints, but the suit property mentioned in the plaint of the suit in question is carved out of the plot mentioned in the previous suit, therefore, the decision in the previous suit would bar the subsequent suit by the principle of res judicata.

11. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent(s) that by clever drafting a suit which is otherwise barred by law cannot become maintainable. Moreover, the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of fact and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court does not warrant interference.

12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the materials available on record.

13. It cannot be denied that the issue of res judicata is generally a matter of trial and, therefore, the plaint is not ordinarily to be rejected at the threshold on the plea that the suit is barred by res judicata. Besides, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to be addressed on plaint averments only.[Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 99]

14. In the present case, what transpires from the record (i.e., the plaints of the two suits) is that the suit schedule property described in the plaint of the suit in question is at variance the one mentioned in the plaint of the earlier suit. Whether the said property has been carved out of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit, or it is a new number of the erstwhile property, is a matter which would have to be pleaded and proved in the trial. Therefore, we do not find a good reason to reject the plaint at the threshold, particularly when it discloses a cause of action. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and is set aside accordingly.

15. In consequence, the appeal is allowed. The suit in question shall stand restored on the file of the Trial Court for being dealt with in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit in question. All contentions are left open for parties to raise in the suit in question.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.