1 2025:CGHC:13661 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 71 of 2025 • Mahabal Das Baghel S/o Late Lakhan Das Baghel Aged About 56 Years R/o Mata Dewalay Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1). ... Applicant. versus 1 - Basant Kumar Bhrigu S/o Late Dr. Shri Shiv Kumar Bhrigu Aged About 62 Years R/o Bajrang Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil - Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (plaintiff) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For State : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 21/03/2025 1. This Civil Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 01.03.2025 AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.03.22 17:55:36 +0530 2 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division Balodabazar to the Court of Second Additional Judge, Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit A FOR CJ/31/2018 whereby, the application filed by the applicant/Defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, by making averment inter alia, that he has purchased the subject property through Anup Kumar, Swaroop Kumar and Bharat Kumar by way of registered sale deed dated 08.09.2003. Learned counsel further submits that sellers are not the title holders of the subject land as the land is already confiscated in favour of the Government pursuant to the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue which has also been afÏrmed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.178/2021 (Mahabal Das vs. Anup Kumar Agrawal and Others). Learned counsel further submits that possession of the land is neither lying with the sellers nor with the plaintiffs, however, the trial Court has dismissed the application, which is not justifiable. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the revision carefully. 4. It is well settled that for determining whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not, the Court has to see only the averments in the plaint and the accompanying document relied upon in the plaint and the fact elicited from the plaintiff by examining him under Order 10. The Court has to presume the fact stated in the plaint as correct. The Court cannot look into the defence set up by the defendant in their written statement or the 3 application while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the grounds which have been raised by Defendant No.1 have rightly been dealt with by the trial Court that the same shall be decided at the time of trial after collecting the evidence as the said fact is a mixed question of law and fact. Further, the trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiff was neither party in the revenue proceedings nor in the Writ Appeal, therefore, whether the said finding is binding or not is to be seen during trial. 6. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order which would warrant interference of this Court invoking revisional jurisdiction. 7. Resultantly, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash