1 2025:CGHC:29651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 6 of 2025 1 - Harshvardhan Sharma S/o Late Shri Jawahar Sharma Aged About 75 Years R/o In Front Of Shri N.M. Agrawal (C.A.), Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Padendra Tiwari S/o Late Shri Chitranjan Tiwari Aged About 68 Years R/o Front Of House No. Mig/17, Raipur Naka, Mukit Nagar, Durg, Tah. And Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Prabha Devi Shukla W/o Shri Shyamani Shukla Aged About 66 Years R/o Near Gulheri Aata Chakki, Gondpara, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vinay Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Chitranjan Tiwari Aged About 61 Years R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Deelip Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Chitranjan Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o Near Gourishankar Tempe, Joratalab Road, Behind Gondwana Bhowan, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Vijay Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Chitranjan Tiwari Aged About 67 Years R/o Old Bus Stand, Behind Warehouse, Janjgir, Tah. And Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants versus 1 - Abhishek Gauraha S/o Late Narayan Prasad Gauraha Aged About 45 Years R/o Rudra Vihar Colony, Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ankit Gauraha S/o Late Narayan Prasad Gauraha Aged About 37 Years R/o Rudra Vihar Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.01 19:28:18 +0530 2 Colony, Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Trisha Gauraha D/o Late Narayan Prasad Gauraha Aged About 30 Years R/o Rudra Vihar Colony, Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Devkumari W/o Shivkumar Shukla Aged About 74 Years R/o In Front Of Bansant Complex, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sushila Dwivedi W/o Jeevan Lal Aged About 54 Years R/o Imli Duggi, Korba, Tah. And Distt.- Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Vedbhushan Dwivedi S/o Bhopal Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 53 Years R/o Imli Duggi, Korba, Tah. And Distt.- Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Shashibhushan Dwivedi S/o Bhopal Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 50 Years R/o Imli Duggi, Korba, Tah. And Distt.- Korba, Chhattisgarh 8 - Vibhuti Bhushan Dwivedi S/o Bhopal Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 48 Years R/o Imli Duggi, Korba, Tah. And Distt.- Korba, Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Jyoti Pandey W/o Chandra Kishore Pandey Aged About 57 Years R/o Bhavani Temple, Kohadiya Darri, Tah. And Distt.- Korba (Chhattisgarh) 10 - Smt. Sangeeta Shukla W/o Shri Nirmal Shukla Aged About 53 Years R/o Behind Sahu Kirana Store, Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 11 - Swaranlata D/o Late Shri Chitranjan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 64 Years R/o Tiwaripara, Kharoud, Tah. Pamgarh, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 12 - Bajrang S/o Shri Parasram Rahi, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Tiwaripara, Ward No. 1, Kharoud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Tah. Pamgarh, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Present Address- Ward No. 40, Harikishan Dafai Sonawani Doman Hill, Chirmiri, Sonpani Kolli, Koriya, Distt.- Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (Chhattisgarh) 13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Janjgir, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) (Smt. Madhu Gauraha, Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari And Pradeep Kumar Tiwari And Died) ... Respondents 3 For Applicants : Shri Ravindra Sharma and Shri V.A. Goverdhan, Advocates For Respective Respondents : Shri Ritesh Sharma, Shri Malay Shrivastava, Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocates and Shri Ankur Kashyap, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. In the instant revision, the applicants are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge Pamgarh to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2018, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected an application U/o 7 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code R/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the applicants, holding that the plaintiffs are not party in the sale deed dated 16.12.2022 therefore it appears that they have rightly valued the suit. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order ignoring that for the purposes of jurisdiction the valuation has to be done as per the value of the document on which the relief has been sought. The plaintiffs have sought the relief that the sale deed dated 16.12.2022 is not binding upon them, therefore, they have to value the suit according to the value of the document/sale deed and in case of proper valuation the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court but ignoring the same the impugned order has been passed which is illegal, improper and contrary to the law. Hence, the instant Civil Revision. 4 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the plaintiffs have wrongly valued the suit while ignoring the value of the document, i.e., the sale deed of Rs.17,74,500 for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Even if the plaintiffs are not party to the said sale deed for the proper valuation of the suit regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit has to be valued properly which has not been done. The Trial Court did not consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has illegally rejected the same stating that the suit has properly been valued as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Suits Valuation Act and as such this revision has been filed. If the suit would be properly valued, it would be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the concerned Trial Court where the matter is being tried. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the suit has been properly valued and for deciding application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC only plaint averments are required to be seen. The objection raised by the defendants either in the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC or in the written statement is not required to be seen while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. It is between the Court and the plaintiffs. The defendants cannot object the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order. 5 5. From perusal of the plaint, it seems that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title, declaration of sale deed dated 16.12.2022 to be null and void and for partition and separate possession. He has also filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants No.1 to 7 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Earlier relief of declaration of sale deed has not been sought, however, by an amendment, the relief of declaration of sale deed dated 16.12.2022 to be null and void has been sought. The suit was valued on the basis of their relief of declaration of title and declaration of sale deed to be null and void along with possession of permanent injunction. As of now, since the plaintiffs are also seeking declaration of sale deed dated 16.12.2022 to be null and void and as such there is dispute regarding valuation of the plaint. However, the same cannot be adjudicated on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC only plaint averments are required to be examined. For considering the dispute regarding valuation of the suit as well as for pecuniary jurisdiction, the parties should have entered into evidence to ascertain their objection. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint for adjudication before the proper Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. But, since a dispute has been raised in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction and according to the defendants the valuation of the sale deed dated 16.12.2022 is Rs.17,74,500, as such only for the purpose of deciding objection in respect of pecuniary 6 jurisdiction the Trial Court should frame a preliminary issue in this respect and to try the same on the basis of said issue after taking evidence of the parties as preliminary issue. If the Court finds that the suit is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction then the Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders for return of the plaint for filing it before appropriate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. However, if the Court finds pecuniary jurisdiction within the limit of the Court, the Court shall proceed further for deciding the matter on merits. 6. Accordingly, the concerned Trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue in respect of valuation of the suit about its pecuniary jurisdiction and to decide the same as preliminary issue. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh