1 2025:CGHC:14399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 73 of 2025 • M/s. Sarda Agriculture And Property Pvt. Limited Through Director Smt. Uma Sarda, W/o Shri K.K. Sarda, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Through its Authorized Representative/signatory Namely M. Rajsekhar, S/o Late Dr. M.S.N. Sharma, Aged 52 Years, R/o A-11 Anand Niketan, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Applicant/Defendant No.3 versus 1. Ramniwas Jhanwar S/o Hajari Lal Jhanwar Through Power Of Attorney Manoj Jhanwar, S/o S.D. Jhanwar, R/o Shiv Complex, Mova, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2. Smt. Krishna Jhanwar, W/o Shri Dulichand Jhanwar Through Power Of Attorney Manoj Jhanwar, S/o S.D. Jhanwar, R/o Shiv Complex, Mova, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 3. Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Through Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Headquarter Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent/defendant No. 1) 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent/defendant No. 2) PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.03.26 15:36:00 +0530 2 5. Prachi Agriculture And Properties Pvt. Limited, Through Director Shri Kamal Kishore Sarda, S/o Shri Ramkishore Sard, R/o Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent/defendant No. 3A) 6. Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Jainarayan Gupta R/o Bhartiya Gestro- Intralomy Hospital, Bhartiya Parisar, Near Ekai Over, Main Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent/defendant No. 4) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe along with Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 26/03/2025 1. This Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 30.11.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.19A/2013 by the 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Raipur (C.G.) whereby the application preferred by the applicant/defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction for demolition of illegal construction over the land of the plaintiffs by making an averment inter alia that plaintiff No.1 is the owner of Khasra No.1185/1J area 0.344 hectare and plaintiff No.2 is also the owner of Khasra No.1185/1J area 0.344 hectare and both had purchased the said property 3 from the trust known as “Ramchandra Ji Swami Bhagirathi Mandir Trust, Shankar Nagar Raipur” through different sale deeds executed on 04.01.2000. It has been further averred that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.5 and defendant No.3/applicant herein constructed a boundary wall on some part of the subject land and the same has been revealed and came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 16.12.2021 and after amending the pleading and arraying the applicant and defendant No.5 as a party, the aforesaid relief was sought. In the said suit, defendant No.4 and defendant No.3/applicant herein separately filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application filed by the applicant, as initially the suit was filed in the year 2006 and no specific cause of action was disclosed against the applicant about the date of knowledge of the alleged construction of the boundary wall. He would submit that the cause of action would be different against the original defendant, so the plaintiffs ought to have filed a separate civil suit. He would further submit that while considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was observed that only plaint averment has to be seen and not the averment in the written statements. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance in the matter of Ramisetty Venkatanna And Another vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb And Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521 and refers to Paras 24 to 31 which read thus:- 4 “24.In the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 in paragraph 5 while considering the provision of Order VII Rule XI, this Court has observed as under: - “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.” “25.In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed and held as under: “11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.” “12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of 5 the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)” “26.In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174, this Court observed and held as under: “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while 6 considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” “27.In the case of Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Raj Narain Sarin (supra).” “28.Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the applicability of Order VII Rule XI to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law.” “29.Now, so far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Privy Council referred to 7 hereinabove and on the decision of this Court in the case of Subhaga (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions. However, the question is the suit being barred by limitation and the illusory cause of action.” “30.Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) is concerned, again there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down by this Court that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be considered and not the averments in the written statement. However, on considering the averments in the plaint as they are, we are of the opinion that the plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting.” “31.In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application submitted by the appellants – original defendant Nos. 9 and 10 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of the CPC is hereby allowed and consequently, the plaint of Civil Suit (O.S.) No. 35/2014 is ordered to be rejected. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.” 8 4. Lastly, he submits that in the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same may be set aside. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the averments made in the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly observed that after the amendment, the plaintiffs had made an averment against defendant/applicant herein that he has also constructed a boundary wall on the subject property and they came to know when the demarcation report has been filed. Considering the grounds available under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court is of the view that the same would not attract by a bare reading of the plaint. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 7. Resultantly, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka