1 2025:CGHC:29061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 156 of 2025 1 - Smt. Mamta Khare W/o S. K. Khare Aged About 54 Years R/o House Of Raju Verma, Delight Compound, Civil Line, Jabalpur, M.P. (Defendant No.1) 2 - S. K. Khare S/o Late H. M. Khare Aged About 58 Years R/o House Of Raju Verma, Delight Compound, Civil Line, Jabalpur, M.P. (Defendant No.2) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Mamta Das W/o B. Das Aged About 51 Years R/o Torwa Basti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. (Plaintiff) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, Office Of Collector, Bilaspur, Near Nehru Chowk, District Bilaspur, C.G. (Defendant No.3) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (30.06.2025) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition/appeal being ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned Court of 10th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No. A/112/2021, whereby the learned Trial Court declined to entertain and accept the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the same holding that the application lacked merit and did not disclose sufficient grounds for rejection of the plaint. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse possession. It is contended that an agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 10.07.2007, and the suit filed on 28.07.2021 is barred by limitation. On this premise, an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC was moved seeking rejection of the plaint. In reply, the plaintiff/respondent contended that the suit is within limitation and that the question of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Trial Court, after due consideration, rejected the said application vide order dated 26.04.2025. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 4. The primary question for consideration before this Court is whether, on the basis of the pleadings in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the suit can be rejected as being barred by limitation. 3 5. It is a settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. Neither the defence raised in the written statement nor the grounds urged in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be looked into at that stage. 6. Further, the issue of limitation often involves a mixed question of law and fact. In the present case, whether the suit is within limitation or not cannot be decided in limine without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The Trial Court, in its impugned order, has rightly observed that such questions must be decided at the appropriate stage after framing of issues and considering evidence on record. 7. The second contention regarding valuation of the suit and sufficiency of court fees also involves factual adjudication and cannot be determined solely on the basis of the objections raised by the defendants. These are matters which may be addressed by the Trial Court after framing proper issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. 8. The Trial Court has dealt with the matter in detail, considering the relevant legal principles and judicial precedents, and has rightly concluded that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at this stage. This Court finds no perversity or jurisdictional error in the reasoning or findings of the Trial Court warranting interference under supervisory jurisdiction. 4 9. However, it is observed that since the petitioner/defendant has raised the plea of limitation and valuation, the Trial Court may, in its discretion, frame appropriate issues on these aspects and decide the same as preliminary issues, after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, with the above observation(s) and direction(s), the present civil revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Let a certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena