1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 289 of 2025 Judgment Reserved on: 25.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2026 • K. V. Anand S/o Late Shri A.K. Anand Aged About 58 Years R/o Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent 1). ... Applicant(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent – 2). 2. Anup Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Ravi Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Suresh Prasad Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the applicant/defendant No. 1 assailing the order dated 14.08.2025 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the applicant’s application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. The applicant contends that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and a failure to appreciate the grounds raised in support of the plea for rejection of the plaint, thereby necessitating interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 2. In a suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction, the applicant/defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending, inter alia, that the suit is premised on a claim of adverse possession even though the plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the suit property, and therefore no cause of action has arisen for the institution of the suit, moreover, it is urged that the plaintiff has failed to properly value the suit property and has also not affixed the requisite court fees in accordance with law, rendering the plaint liable to rejection under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the CPC. 3. The plaintiff has opposed the said application by contending that the issues raised by defendant No. 1 pertain to the merits of the dispute and are intrinsically matters requiring full-fledged trial, as they involve adjudication based on evidence; therefore, such contentions cannot be examined or decided at the stage of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which is confined 3 solely to a scrutiny of the plaint as presented and does not permit appreciation of disputed facts or evidence. 4. The learned trial Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff, rejected the said application by observing that a perusal of the plaint and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC reveals that the defendant has essentially raised two objections, namely: first, that no cause of action has arisen for filing the suit, and second, that the suit has not been properly valued and the requisite court fees have not been paid. The Trial Court held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 has to be decided solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, and the issue as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property or not is a matter requiring evidence and therefore cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. With regard to the objection concerning improper valuation and insufficient court fees, the Trial Court partly allowed the application by directing the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 400/- towards the deficit court fees, failing which the plaint would stand rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error of law in declining to dismiss the suit, as a bare perusal of the plaint itself reveals that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, yet he has sought the relief of permanent injunction along with a declaration of title. It is submitted that the applicant has placed on record several 4 documents to demonstrate that the plaintiff is admittedly not in possession, and therefore no cause of action has arisen for instituting the suit. He further argues that the suit is founded on a plea of adverse possession, and in such circumstances it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead and establish, within the plaint itself, all necessary facts constituting adverse possession, which he has conspicuously failed to do. According to counsel, in absence of pleading and possession, the suit is devoid of any cause of action, a fact overlooked by the trial Court. He further submits that the value of the suit property exceeds Rs. 1 crore, and therefore the plaintiff was required to properly value the suit and affix the requisite court fees; in the absence of such compliance, the suit is not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729, Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. Raj Kumari Sharma, 1996 8 SCC, Brijesh Kumar and Another vs. Shardabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 369 and Annakili vs. A. Vedanayagam & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 346. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5 8. From a careful perusal of the plaint, it emerges that the plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title along with a relief of permanent injunction on the basis of an alleged claim of adverse possession. It is a well-settled principle of law that while adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint, and neither the defence raised nor any extraneous material can be taken into consideration at that stage. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint, without examining the defence set out in the written statement or in the application filed by the defendant. Insofar as the objection of defendant No. 1 regarding the absence of cause of action is concerned, it is settled law that cause of action comprises a bundle of facts which require full adjudication by the trial Court at the appropriate stage, namely during the framing of issues and upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, and such an exercise cannot be undertaken at the nascent stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11. With respect to the objection regarding improper valuation of the suit and insufficiency of court fees, the learned trial Court, after due consideration, has partly allowed the application by directing the plaintiff to affix additional court fees of Rs. 400/-, further observing 6 that failure to comply with the said direction shall result in rejection of the suit. 10. In the aforesaid premises, it is evident that the learned trial Court has committed no error of law in partly allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, particularly when the question of proper valuation of the suit and affixation of appropriate court fees is an issue that can appropriately be examined at a later stage after the framing of issues. It is a well- settled principle that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be allowed unless, on a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint averments alone, the suit is shown to be barred by any of the contingencies enumerated under clauses (a), (c), (d), and (e) of Order 7 Rule 11. Since such a bar is not demonstrable from the plaint itself, the trial Court’s approach in refraining from rejecting the suit at this preliminary stage stands firmly justified. 11. In the present matter, a careful perusal of the plaint makes it evident that the grounds sought to be relied upon by the applicant do not emerge as issues capable of being conclusively adjudicated at this nascent stage of the proceedings, rather, they appear to require a full-fledged examination by the learned trial Court during the course of trial, upon proper framing of issues and after recording the parties’ evidence. In such circumstances, and particularly when the disputed questions necessitate detailed scrutiny of facts, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned trial 7 Court, which has rightly declined to entertain the objections at this preliminary stage. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 25.11.2025 15.1.2026 - 15.1.2026 Raghu Jat