1 2025:CGHC:33763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 71 of 2024 1 - Anjori Lal Dewangan S/o Late Babulal Dewangan Aged About 56 Years R/o Vill. Sukul Daihan, Post Dhangaon, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sonkunwar Bai D/o Late Babulal Aged About 51 Years R/o Tulsipur Ward No. 18 Rajnandgaon, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2 - Fulmati Bai D/o Late Babulal Aged About 48 Years R/o Vill. Soma Jhitiya, Tah. Dongergaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Suit No.2A/2020 between Sonkunwar Bai and Anoth. Vs. Anjori Lal Dewangan and Anoth. (Annexure P-4) and the application of the petitioner filed U/o 7 R-11 of the C.P.C. may kindly be allowed with costs throughout in the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the original plaintiff, Late Babulal has filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the gift deed dated 29-08-2019 is void ab initio and not binding upon him, along with a prayer for a permanent injunction against the petitioner, before the Court below. He stated that he is the owner of land which is situated in Survey No. 344/9, admeasuring 1200 square feet of un-diverted land, out of which a house is constructed on 61.62 square meters, and the remaining portion is an open plot. He alleged that the petitioner is his son and that he also has two 3 daughters, namely Sonkunwar and Fulmat Dewangan. The petitioner is residing separately with his wife and children, while Fulmat Bai is living with her husband, and Sonkunwar, who is divorced, resides with Late Babulal and takes care of him. It was further alleged that on 29-08-2019, the petitioner, under the pretext of some work, deceitfully took Late Babulal with him and executed the questioned gift deed of the suit property by keeping him in the dark. When the petitioner tried to evict him from the house, he inquired through his counsel, who, on 25-11-2019, informed him after obtaining a certified copy of the document that the petitioner had procured the execution of the questioned gift deed dated 29-08-2019 by taking advantage of his illiteracy. Hence, Late Babulal filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner, by filing his written statement, denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that the gift deed is genuine and that Late Babulal is denying its execution under the influence of his daughter Sonkunwar. Subsequently, before the framing of issues, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the plaintiff had not properly valued the civil suit and, as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Court Fees Act, was required to pay the court fees based on the valuation of the suit property mentioned in the gift deed. The respondents, in 4 reply to this application, contended that Late Babulal was suffering from paralysis and was physically disabled, and that the petitioner was taking undue advantage of his condition. They further submitted that since no valuation of the suit property was mentioned in the gift deed, the suit was properly valued. However, the Court below, vide its impugned order dated 08-02- 2024, dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, ignoring the material facts and without appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts. The Court held that, on a bare perusal of the plaint, it was evident that Late Babulal had not sought relief of possession but had only prayed for a declaration and permanent injunction, and therefore, the payment of court fees based on the valuation of the suit land was not required. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (227) No. 246/2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the aforementioned order dated 08-02- 2024, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file the present petition, as a civil revision was maintainable against the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suit as filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable before the present Court due to improper valuation of the subject matter in dispute. He further submits that if the valuation of the suit property is correctly 5 assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court would be ousted. Consequently, the Court below would have no authority to entertain or adjudicate upon the matter. He further submits that, in view of this jurisdictional defect, the applicant has rightly preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He further submits that entertaining the suit in its present form would amount to a violation of the mandatory provisions of law governing valuation and jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter and cannot be ignored. Hence, this revision. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 6. It is a well-settled principle of law that an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) must be adjudicated solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and not on the objections or pleas raised by the defendants in their written statement or otherwise. The Court, while considering such an application, is required to examine only the contents of the plaint, taking the statements made therein to be 6 true for the purpose of deciding whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. At the same time, it is directed that, before the suit proceeds to trial, the learned trial Court shall frame and decide, as a preliminary issue, the question of (i) the correct valuation of the suit, and (ii) the sufficiency/payment of the requisite court-fees. The parties shall be afforded due opportunity to address the Court and, if necessary, to lead evidence confined to that issue. Should the suit, upon such determination, be found to exceed the pecuniary limits of the present Court, appropriate orders shall be passed forthwith in accordance with law including, where warranted, return of the plaint for presentation before, or transmission of the record to, the Court of competent pecuniary jurisdiction so that the trial may thereafter proceed before the proper forum. 8. With the above observations and directions, the civil revision is disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat