1 2025:CGHC:3326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 61 of 2023 1 - Surendra Singh S/o Late Raja Singh, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Near Gurudwara, Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gurmit Singh, S/o Late Raja Singh, Aged About 54 Years R/o Near Santosh Singh Memorial School, Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Surjit Singh S/o Late Raja Singh Aged About 40 Years 2 - Daljit Singh, S/o Late Raja Singh, Aged About 38 Years Both are R/o Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bahadur Singh S/o Late Raja Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Govind Nagar, Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.01.21 14:00:22 +0530 2 For Applicants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For State Mr. S.K. Puria, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 20/01/2025 Heard. 1. This Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 20.2.2023 passed by the First Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.25-A/2021, whereby, while dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC, the objection raised by the applicants/defendants 1 & 3 was rejected. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction by making averments inter alia that after the death of Raja Singh, the plaintiffs are the title holders of the subject land and further, late Raja Singh had also executed a Will dated 31.5.2011 in respect of certain land admeasuring area 4.87 acres. It has been averred that in Khasra No.801/6, admeasuring 0.008, a house has been built up and for the past 40 years, the plaintiffs have been have been in continuous possession over 3 the same. However, the defendants are trying to dispossess them, therefore, the present suit has been filed by making valuation for declaration in respect of the suit house to the tune of Rs. 8,00,600/- and for permanent injunction to the tune of Rs.600/-. Accordingly, the suit has been preferred before the Civil Judge Class-I, now Senior Civil Judge, in which, the present application has been filed under Section 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC by raising an objection that in a similar matter, a Revenue Appeal is still pending for the same cause under Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in its present form. It has been further averred that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the subject property and they ought to have valued the suit property according to the market value of the land. It has also been averred that no legal notice has been sent under Section 80 of the CPC and no proper pleading has also been made in respect of the Ceiling Act, which is mandatorily required. By the impugned order, the trial Court observed that the State is a formal party and there is a dispute of title, therefore, the suit is maintainable and further, the other issues shall be decided after framing of the issues. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants 1 & 3 would submit that in Khasra No.598/52, Street No.14, Plot No.25/1,Ward No.5, Mahima Nagar Ward, Near Gurudwara, Mauza Sirgitti, Block Belha, Rajswa Nirikshak Mandal, Bilaspur, a 4 house has been constructed but the plaintiffs have not disclosed and made any averment in the plaint that in a different Khasra Number, another house has also been constructed and thereby, materially suppressed the said fact. Learned counsel for the applicants would also submit that as no proper valuation has been made, therefore, if the plaintiffs properly value the suit property, the suit would be ousted from the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Senior Division and ought to be filed before Court of the District Judge. He would further submit that MP Amendment No.29/1984 has been made under Order 6 of the CPC, in which, there is a mandatory requirement about pleading of the Ceiling Act but the same has not been complied with. Hence, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the objection. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would support the contentions of learned counsel for the applicants. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would support the impugned order. 6. In the MP Amendment Act No. 29/1984, Rule 4-A has been inserted which envisages that any suit or proceeding contemplated under Rule 3-B of Order I, the parties, other than the State Government shall plead the particulars of total agricultural land which is owned, claimed or held by them in any right and shall further declare whether the subject-matter of suit or proceeding is or is not covered by Madhya Pradesh (Now CG) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 ( No. 20 of 1960 ) and 5 whether any proceedings in relation to such subject matter are to the knowledge of the party pending before the competent authority. 7. After going through the plaint averments, it appears that no such pleading has been made though the nature of the subject property is agricultural and the particulars are required under Rule 4-A of Order 6 of the CPC. It is also the settled law that on such score, a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and an opportunity ought to have been granted to the plaintiffs to amend the same. 8. It is well settled that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to see only the averments in the plaint, the accompanied documents relied upon in the plaint and the facts elicited from the plaintiff examining him under Order 10. The Court has to presume the facts stated in the plaint as correct. The Court cannot look into the defence set out by the defendants in the written statement or the application. 9. Section 10 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ( in short “the Act, 1870”) prescribes the procedure where the market value has been wrongly estimated. For the sake of brevity, the said provision is reproduced hereunder : Section 10. Procedure where net profits or market- value wrongly estimated.- (i) If in the result of any such investigation the Court finds that the net profits or market-value have or has 6 been wrongly estimated, the Court, if the estimation has been excessive, may in its discretion refund the excess paid as such fee: but, if the estimation has been insufÏcient, the Court shall require the plaintiff to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the said market-value or net profits been rightly estimated. (ii) In such case the suit shall be stayed until the additional fee is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed. 10. In view of Section 10 of the Act, 1870, a discretion has been vested to the Court if the valuation has been wrongly estimated and the procedure ought to be adopted. Though the defendants/applicants herein has taken a specific plea that the said house has been constructed in Khasra No.598/52, but in the plaint, the said fact has been suppressed. 11. When a query has been put to counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs in this regard , he fairly admits that there is a dispute of two houses and also submits that necessary amendment has been incorporated in the plaint. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that even after such amendment, the trial Court may afford a further opportunity for carrying out necessary amendments, if required, and thereafter, if it is found that a wrong estimation has been made, a report may be called from the concerned Sub-Registrar 7 about the ascertainment of proper value of the subject suit property and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna