1 2025:CGHC:20036 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 117 of 2025 1. Narendra Kumar Shrivastava (Dead) Through - The Legal Heirs Smt. Nisha Shrivastava W/o Late Narendra Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 71 Years R/o Near Anand Niketan Gate, Avanti Vihar Colony, P.O. - Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2. Sameer Shrivastava S/o Late Narendra Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Anand Niketan Gate, Avanti Vihar Colony, P.O. - Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1. Anand Niketan R/o Welfare Samiti, Panjikrit Sanstha, Dwara- Karyakari Adhyaksh - Narendra Kumar Verma, S/o Late Shri Ratanlal Verma, R/o E-2, Anand Niketan, Maharishi Valmiki Ward, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Shriman Aayukt Nagar Palik Nigam Raipur, Gandhi Chowk Ke Paas, Raipur (C.G.), ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Not noticed Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board 01/05/2025 1 Heard on admission. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.05.07 10:18:49 +0530 2 2 The instant civil revision has been filed by the applicants/defendants under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 05.12.2024, passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 73/2013, whereby, the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 3 Brief facts of the case are that the R-1 herein filed an application under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 before the learned District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) against the applicants herein for removal of the illegal construction and unauthorized possession of the land situated near Anand Niketan and for injunction. 4 The applicants/defendants submitted an application under Order 07 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the case of the respondents revolves around the alleged construction by the applicants in violation of the approved map sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur but the applicants/defendants have duly regularized the layout plan from the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department. 5 Respondent No. 1 denied the said claim of the applicants/defendants in his reply stating that the 3 application was filed because the defendants/applicants constructed in violation of the approved map, converting a residential area into commercial premises and affected the security of the colony. Although the defendants/applicants presented a regularization certificate from the Town and Country Planning Department, but they failed to provide any approved map or regularization certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. Therefore, the objection raised by the defendants/applicants is not acceptable and the application of Order-7 Rule-11 Code of Civil Procedure should be dismissed. 6 Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.12.2024 rejected the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC leading to filing of this revision. 7 Learned counsel for applicants submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prays for setting aside of the said order. 8 Heard learned counsel for the applicants/defendants and perused the record. 9 The said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the applicants/defendants stating that the main 4 dispute has already been resolved and regularization has been done by them, whereas the respondent No. 1 in his reply has denied the said fact. In this situation, the trial Court while passing the impugned order held that it appears that the dispute still exists between both the parties. It is also evident from the application of the applicants/defendants that the basis of resolution of the main dispute taken by them does not fulfill the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC because the said provision does not provide for rejection of the plaint merely on the ground that one party unilaterally considers the dispute to be resolved. Therefore, the application filed by the applicants was dismissed by the trial Court. 10 Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order by the trial Court warranting any interference therein. 11 Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant Revision is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.