Trinath Mohapatra Vs Tpaswini Joshi @ Mohapatra — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Trinath Mohapatra Vs Tpaswini Joshi @ Mohapatra — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision dismissed with no interference in the impugned order; petitioner-defendants left free to seek leave of the Court below to raise limitation as a preliminary issue, such application to be considered by the Court below in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in Civil Suit No. 146/2024 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata, given that the suit challenges the compromise decree of earlier suit T.S. No. 50 of 2001 on the allegation of fraud. +1 more

Court's answer

Though Order 23 Rule 3 CPC places a bar on challenge to a decree obtained on compromise, such a decree can yet be challenged where the challenge is on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation etc.; hence the res judicata bar cannot be sustained against a suit impugning the compromise decree as fraudulent.

Ratio / Principle

Allegations of fraud are required to be proved by the party raising them by adducing evidence; therefore it cannot be held at the threshold that the suit is barred by res judicata without permitting the plaintiff to prove the allegations by adducing evidence.

Key takeaways

Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which can only be proved by adducing evidence, and therefore cannot justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold.ratio¶20
This Court finds nothing wrong in the impugned order and is not persuaded to interfere, inasmuch as none of the clauses of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are applicable to the facts of the present case; the revision is consequently not entertained.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The petitioners, defendant Nos.1 to 4 in Civil Suit No. 146/2024 (Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhawanipatna), had applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, which seeks to set aside the judgment and decree in earlier suit T.S. No. 50 of 2001 (judgment dated 19.02.2005; preliminary decree 26.02.2005; final decree 05.12.2023) on the allegation that the compromise decree was obtained by putting false signatures of the plaintiffs, and claims 1/6th share each on partition and nullity of the ROR. The trial Court had rejected the application. Sustaining that order, the High Court held that although Order 23 Rule 3 CPC bars challenge to a decree obtained on compromise, a challenge founded on fraud or misrepresentation is permissible; since allegations of fraud must be proved by adducing evidence, the suit cannot be held barred by res judicata at the threshold. Limitation, being a mixed question of fact and law provable only by evidence, equally cannot warrant rejection of the plaint at the threshold. Finding none of the clauses of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC applicable, the Court dismissed the revision, leaving the petitioner-defendants at liberty to seek leave of the Court below to raise limitation as a preliminary issue.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRP No. 4 of 2026

Trinath Mohapatra and others

..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Pattajoshi, Adv.

-versus-

Tpaswini Joshi @ Mohapatra ..... Opp.Parties and Ors.

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER 01.07.2026

Order No. 01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. Akash Kumar Pattajoshi, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission.

The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 4 in Civil Suit No. 146/2024 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhawanipatna. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in an earlier suit along with a declaration that they are entitled to 1/6^th share each on partition of the properties belonging to their father, Benudhar Mohapatra. Further declaration is claimed that the ROR published in respect of the suit property is null and void.

After appearing pursuant to summons, the defendants filed an application under Order-7 Rule 11 CPC with prayer to reject the plaint. The ground raised is that the property was subject matter of an earlier suit being T.S. No. 50 of 2001, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 19.02.2005 followed by preliminary decree drawn up on 26.02.2005. Further, the final decree was drawn up on

Page 1 of 3

05.12.2023. It is submitted that the judgment and decree was passed on compromise with the plaintiffs relinquishing their share over the property. Hence, the suit is barred by res judicata . It is further stated that the judgment and decree having been passed way back in the year 2005, is barred by limitation. The trial Court rejected the application under Order-7 Rule-11 CPC, inter alia, holding that a compromise decree can always be challenged on the ground of fraud.

Mr. Pattajoshi submits that the plaintiffs having relinquished their share over the suit property willfully by accepting the compromise decree, cannot turn around and question the same subsequently. He further submits that even otherwise, the suit has been filed after 19 years and is therefore, grossly barred by limitation.

This Court has perused the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. As already stated, the main grounds raised are res judicata and limitation. In so far as res judicata is concerned, perusal of the plaint averments makes it clear that the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit is sought to be challenged on the ground of fraud. It is alleged that the defendants, putting false signatures of the plaintiffs on the written statement, managed to obtain the compromise decree. While it is true that Order 23 Rule 3 CPC places a bar on challenge to a decree obtained on compromise, yet the same can be done if such challenge is on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation etc. It is needless to mention that the allegations of fraud are required to be proved by the party raising it by adducing evidence. It cannot therefore, be held at the threshold that the suit is barred by law of res judicata without permitting the

Page 2 of 3

plaintiff to prove the allegations by adducing evidence. As regards limitation, it goes without saying that the same is a mixed question of fact and law, which can only be proved by adducing evidence.

Under such circumstances, this Court finds nothing wrong in the impugned order so as to be persuaded to interfere, inasmuch as, none of the clauses of order 7 Rule 11 CPC are applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court is therefore, not inclined to entertain the revision, which is dismissed. It shall further be open to the petitioner-defendants to seek leave of the Court below to raise the question of limitation as a preliminary issue. If such application is filed, the Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

A.K. Rana

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 01-Jul-2026 17:39:29

Page 3 of 3