CS Professional · Drafting, Pleadings and Appearances · Pleadings

Sunil sued Prakash for recovery of possession of a shop, and the suit was decided finally after hearing. In that suit Sunil could have claimed a declaration of title but did not do so. He now files a fresh plaint seeking the declaration, between the same parties and under the same title, in a competent court. Which view is correct under Section 11 of the Code?

The new suit is barred. Under Explanation IV to Section 11, a matter that might and ought to have been made a ground of attack in the former suit is deemed directly and substantially in issue there, so a later plaint raising it between the same parties cannot be tried.

1. AThe matter is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, as it might and ought to have been made a ground of attack, so the court cannot try the new suitCorrect
2. BSection 11 does not apply because the declaration was never actually claimed
3. CThe new suit is maintainable because res judicata only bars matters expressly decided
4. DThe new suit is barred only if the former suit was instituted earlier than the new one