Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The present revisional application has been directed, at the instance of the defendant-wife, against an order whereby the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. It is argued that the present suit, substantially for declaration that the marriage registration was void ab initio and for declaration that there was no matrimonial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, was barred by res judicata in view of dismissal of a previous suit for similar reliefs. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint of the present suit admits the factum of dismissal of the previous suit and as such ought to have been rejected at the outset.
(2.) Controverting such argument, learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the present suit was filed before a Civil Judge (Junior Division) for declaration as to the marriage registration of the parties being void and for declaration that no matrimonial relationship existed between the parties, and for consequential reliefs. On the other hand, it is submitted that the previous suit was filed before a District Judge under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a declaration that the marriage between the parties was a nullity in terms of the said provision of law. As such, it is argued, the previous suit was of different scope than the present one and the Court which took up the prior suit was not "competent", as envisaged under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, due to lack of jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought in the present proceeding. In such view of the matter, it is submitted that the order of the Trial Court refusing the prayer for rejection of the plaint was perfectly justified.
(3.) Upon hearing both sides, it is seen that the current suit was filed for the following reliefs: "a) A Decree for Declaration that the Marriage Registration as was held on 19/05/2012 by the Marriage Registrar, Malay Kanti Guha Thakurta through issuance of the Marriage Certificate being No. 265 dated 19/05/2012, is void ab initio. b) A Decree for Declaration that there is no matrimonial relationship by and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. c) A Decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from taking any possession of any property of the Plaintiff in any way or in any manner. d) All Costs of the Suit. e) Any other relief or reliefs." Whereas, the previous suit was filed for the reliefs as quoted below: "i) for that declare that the said purported marriage between the parties dated 28.4.2012 and registration the said marriage on 19.5.12 before the Marriage Registrar Vide Certificate Sl. No. 265 is null and void by a decree of nullity. ii) for such other relief or reliefs as your Honour seem fit and proper.";