1 2025:CGHC:35927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 55 of 2025 1 - Anusuiya Vaishnav W/o Shri Sukhnandan Vaishnav Aged About 51 Years R/o Behind Honda Showroom, Jaihind Chowk, Lodhipara, Kaapa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Shrimati Nandani Vaishnav W/o Shri R.K. Vaishnav R/o Through Shri Raju Das Vaishnav Near Chir Ghar, Mahavir Ward, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pileshwar Vaishnav W/o Shri Raju Vaishnav R/o Mahavir Ward, Near Chir Ghar, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) 1 & 2 : Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision with consequential relief and quash the impugned order dated 09/01/2025 passed by I Additional Judge, Tilda, District Raipur CG to 1 Civil Judge Senior Division Raipur in CS Case No. 03A/2023, whereby application under O. 7 R. 11 CPC has been rejected; thus ordering return of plaint and consequentially disposing off the case from the records of the trial Court, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the plaintiff has filed a civil suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the sale deed executed for a consideration of Rs. 15,46,000/- on 28/02/2020 is illegal, void, and not binding upon him. The suit was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and Court Fees at Rs. 1,000/- in relation to the said deed. The applicant/defendant has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, challenging the valuation of the suit and the consequential payment of court fees. In response, it was asserted that the plaintiff has not 3 mentioned the “vaad mulya” (value of relief claimed) in the plaint, that it is not a money suit, that the dispute can be adjudicated by framing issues on the point, and that the plaintiff is free to value the suit for declaration and injunction as per his discretion, rendering the objection irrelevant. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. If the said application is allowed, it would result in the termination of proceedings before the trial Court, as it would lead to the return of the plaint and consequential disposal of the case from the trial Court’s records. Hence, the instant revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that the plaintiff has deliberately and arbitrarily undervalued the suit, which is neither fair nor reasonable, thereby violating the settled principles governing valuation under the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. He further submits that the plaintiff has discretion in valuing the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, such discretion must be exercised within the framework of well-settled legal principles. He further submits that the plaint reveals that relief is being claimed with respect to a sale deed executed on 28/02/2020 for a consideration of Rs. 15,46,000/-, and the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the deed is illegal and void. He further submits that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 4 challenging the maintainability of the suit, were raised and argued, yet the trial court failed to frame or address the crucial issue of valuation. He further submits that the plaintiff is indirectly attempting to obtain relief which cannot be granted through such clever drafting, thus creating an illusion of maintainability. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to consider the objections raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Suits Valuation Act amounts to a jurisdictional error and material irregularity. The impugned order is perverse, unsustainable in law, and reflects a failure by the Court below to appreciate the basic legal provisions. Hence, this revision. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the same and supported the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a thorough examination of the contents of the revision, the plaint, and the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it appears that a substantial question regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court has been raised. It further appears that proceeding with the adjudication of the matter without first determining the issue of jurisdiction may result in prejudice to the rights and interests of 5 the parties. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial, it is deemed appropriate that the trial Court should address the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary matter. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is hereby directed to frame a preliminary issue with respect to its pecuniary jurisdiction and to decide the same in accordance with law, after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. In the event that the trial Court arrives at a finding that the suit is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, it shall act in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and return the plaint for presentation before the appropriate forum having the competent jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat