1 2025:CGHC:4785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 115 of 2024 Devnarayan Sahu S/o Shri Kartikram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chhata, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 01) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shrikant Gupta S/o Late Krishna Kumar Gupta Aged About 42 Years Proprietor Shri Jeweler Ganjroad, Infront Of High School Gobra Nawapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) 2 - Punaradram Sahu S/o Late Chainuram Sahu R/o Ward No. 18, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 02) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 03) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate. For Res No.1 : Mr. Ashish Sahu, Adv on behalf of Mr. R. S. Patel, Adv. For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. Heard on IA No.1/2024 – Application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. On due consideration, delay is condoned. AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI 2025.01.28 15:12:04 +0530 2 3. This revision has been filed against the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No.227-A/2018, whereby, objection application filed by the applicant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected. 4. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sale, in which, defendant No.1 has raised an objection by way of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that the stamp has been purchased with the different name and agreement has been executed in a fraudulent manner. However, the trial Court has rejected the said objection by holding that the issue raised by the defendant is mixed question of law and facts and at this stage only plaint averment has to be seen. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the said application. He submits that the plaintiff has prepared forged documents and stamp has been purchased with the different name, on the basis of which, agreement has been executed. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff is liable to rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent supports the order impugned. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned and also considering the objection raised by the defendant, this Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the order impugned is just and proper and same does not call for any interference by this Court. Further, the issue 3 raised by the plaintiff is mixed question of law and facts and at this stage only plaint averment has to be seen. Hence, the trial Court has not committed error in rejecting the said objection. 8. For the foregoing, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay