IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1612 of 2004 NITYA NAND PANDIT Versus SRI BISHWANATH PANDIT & ORS ----------- 15 29.09.2008 Heard counsel for the parties In the opinion of this Court, the issue as to whether a suit will be barred by res-judicata or not can be more effectively gone into only at the stage when the defendants would appear and file their written statement raising a preliminary issue, after framing of issues, all other in terms of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the Court has to only examine the plaint to find out as to whether the plaint is fit to be rejected. In this case, at least from the reading of the plaint, this was not possible for the Court below to arrive at a finding that the suit was maintainable for six out of the seven plots no. 528, 518, 554, 532, 514 and 521 and was barred by res-judicata for the remaining plot i.e. plot no. 1259. That apart Order-VII Rule 11 does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. The concept of partial rejection is apparently inapplicable to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order with a liberty to the parties to raise this issue of res-judicata in a consolidated manner after the parties have completed their pleadings and issues are framed. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)