ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing the instant civil misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Court Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.202/2020 by which the claim petition submitted by the appellants-claimants (for short “the claimants”) has been rejected on the ground of res judicata. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants had submitted a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma in a road accident. However, the same has been rejected by the Tribunal on the technical ground that filing of the claim petition by the claimants amounts to res judicata since previously, a claim petition was also submitted by the injured Krishan Kant Sharma himself (who is now deceased) before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. 3. Learned counsel submits that the deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma met with an accident on 09.11.2015, wherein he suffered certain injuries and thereafter, he submitted a claim petition before the Tribunal during his lifetime. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the said claim, the injured Krishan Kant Sharma expired. Since the legal representatives of Krishan Kant Sharma were not taken on record, hence, the injury claim submitted by Krishan Kant Sharma was rendered infructuous. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the claimants have submitted the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma before the Tribunal, but the same was rejected not on merits, but on a technical count that same is not maintainable, as it amounts to res judicata. Learned counsel submits that unless and until the earlier claim petition filed by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma himself, is decided on its merits on the basis of issues framed and on the basis of evidence led by both the sides, the subsequent case filed by his family members cannot be rejected on the technical count that the same amounts to res judicata. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. while deciding Civil Appeal No.4665/2021 on 09.08.2021 and Pandurangan Vs. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. while deciding Civil Appeal No.4665/2021 on 09.08.2021 and Pandurangan Vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. while deciding Civil Appeal No.7743/2025 on 14.07.2025 and the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of V. Anitha Gangadhara & Ors. Vs. S. Srirama Reddy & Anr. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 8210 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that for the same incident, two different claim petitions cannot be submitted. Once the claim petition submitted by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma for his injuries has been rejected, then under such circumstances, the subsequent claim petition submitted by his claimants was not maintainable before the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error by treating the subsequent claim petition as res judicata. Learned counsel submits that a reasoned and cogent order has been passed by the Tribunal, which requires no interference of this Court and the instant appeal submitted by the claimant is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the now deceased- Krishan Kant Sharma sustained injuries in a road accident which occurred on 09.11.2015 and for the same, he submitted a claim petition bearing No.701/2017 before the Tribunal. This fact is not in dispute that during pendency of the said claim petition, Krishan Kant Sharma expired and his legal representatives were not brought on the record, hence, under these circumstances, the aforesaid claim petition was rendered as infructuous. Subsequently, the claimants have submitted the instant claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma. However, the subsequent claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the same is not maintainable on the ground of res judicata. 8. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether the subsequent claim petition submitted by the claimant amounts to res judicata or not. 9. However, the subsequent claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the same is not maintainable on the ground of res judicata. 8. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether the subsequent claim petition submitted by the claimant amounts to res judicata or not. 9. The term “res judicata” has been defined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), which reads as under:- “11. Res judicata. - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.” 10. Section 11 of the CPC enunciates the rule of res judicata : a court shall not try any suit or issue in which the matter that is directly in issue has been directly or indirectly heard and decided in a ‘former suit’. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudicating on the issue of res judicata it is necessary that the same issue (that is raised in the suit) has been adjudicated in the former suit. It is necessary that this Court refer to the exercise taken up by this Court while adjudicating on res judicata, before referring to res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava reported in (2004) 1 SCC 551 discussed the plea of res judicata and the particulars that would be required to prove the plea. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is necessary to refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the judgment of the ‘former suit’ while adjudicating on the plea of res judicata: “11. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. 13. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. 13. Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. Maybe, in a given case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed out in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa [ (1976) 4 SCC 780 ] the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. It is risky to speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [ AIR 1964 SC 1810 : (1964) 7 SCR 831 ] placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council [(1887-88) 15 IA 186 : ILR 16 Cal 173] pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot be determined without ascertaining what were the matters in issue in the previous suit and what was heard and decided. Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit.” (emphasis supplied) 11. The term res judicata as defined under Section 11 of CPC indicates that the matters where a former suit between the parties has been decided on merits. 12. In the instant case, the earlier claim petition submitted by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma has not been decided on its merits because during pendency of the same, he expired and his legal representatives were not brought on record. Under such circumstances, the same was rendered as infructuous by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the instant claim petition was submitted by his claimants seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the now deceased-Krishan Kant Sharma before the Tribunal. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the subsequent claim petition submitted by the claimants is liable to be decided on its merits because the same is not barred by the term “res judicata”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra) has considered the catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and, thereafter, it has been held in Para 20, which reads as under:- “20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra) has considered the catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and, thereafter, it has been held in Para 20, which reads as under:- “20. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized as follows: (i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to; (ii) The defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application; (iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the ‘previous suit’ is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and (iv) Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.” 14. The view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra) has been further followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pandurangan (supra) by reiterating the same view. 15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra) and Pandurangan (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view, hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is found to be erroneous and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. 16. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the same on its merits after framing the issues, recording the evidence of both the sides and hearing both the sides. 16. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the same on its merits after framing the issues, recording the evidence of both the sides and hearing both the sides. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09.03.2026 and on the subsequent dates, so fixed by the Tribunal. 17. Looking to the fact that the matter pertains to an accident which occurred in the year 2015; and more than a decade has passed thereafter, it is expected from the Tribunal to make all possible endeavours to decide the claim petition filed by the claimants expeditiously, as early as possible, strictly in accordance with law. 18. All pending applications (if any) stand disposed of.