1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 162 of 2025 1 - Bimla Devi W/o Santosh Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 13 Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Sushila Devi W/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kanaugiya Aged About 68 Years R/o Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shyambai D/o Late Mehesh Prasad Kanaugiya Aged About 44 Years W/o Sanjay Das, R/o Village Jhagarha, P.S. Amlai, Tahsil Budhar, District Sahdol, Madhya Pradesh. 3 - Rajkumar S/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kanaugiya Aged About 46 Years R/o Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 4 - Lala Kumar S/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kanaugiya Aged About 42 Years R/o Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 5 - Rambai D/o Late Mahesh Prasad Kanaugiya Aged About 48 Years W/o Krishnanand Mishra, R/o Sector- 07, Shop No. 32, Post, Thana, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Lalita D/o Late Ramchandra Kanaugiya Aged About 29 Years W/o Pramod Das, R/o Kumharpara, Baba Talab Ke Niche Rajgangpur, Post Rajgangpur, District Sundargarh, (Odisha) 7 - Anita D/o Late Ramchandra Kanaugiya Aged About 25 Years W/o Kumod, R/o Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.08 12:17:21 +0530 2 Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Lalit S/o Late Ramchandra Kanaugiya Aged About 27 Years R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 9 - Usha Bai W/o Late Ramchandra Kanaugiya Aged About 49 Years R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 10 - Baijnath S/o Late Singeshwar Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. 11 - Smt. Gulabiya Devi D/o Late Dukhharan Das Aged About 82 Years R/o Mohalla Humari, District Patan, Bihar. 12 - Jilbiya Devi D/o Late Dukhharan Das Aged About 77 Years R/o Mohalla Mohammadpur, District Patan, Bihar. 13 - Rupnarayan Patel S/o Mahingal Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Kasaiya, Ward No. 01, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 14 - Deepak Agrawal S/o Chandrabhan Agrawal Aged About 61 Years Occupation Business R/o Kotra Road Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 15 - Jitendra Singh S/o Late Godu Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Jai Stambh Chowk Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 16 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 17 - Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ramawtar, Aged About 51 Years Caste- Bramhan, R/o Hanuman Chowk, Gharghoda, P.S. And Tahsil- Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner/Applicant : Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 3 02/07/2025 1. The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 10.6.2025 passed in Civil Suit No.24-A/2023 (Sushila Devi and others v. Ram Bai and others) by the District Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner/applicant was decided holding that the question of valuation and court fees is to be decided after the trial and not at the current stage. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and for declaring sale deed dated 17.10.2012, 30.11.2012 and 07.08.2020 executed on the basis of power of attorney dated 10.10.2012 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in respect of land bearing Kharsa Nos. 341, 343, 356/2, 521, 543/2, 337/2, 344/3, 348/2, 342, 395/5, 396, 397, 398/2, 395/7, 405/2 Rakba 0.271, 0.417, 0.141, 0.324, 0.425, 1.141, 0.101, 0.581, 0.591, 0.144, 0.018, 0.405, 0.567 hectares, respectively. In the present suit, the petitioner/applicant was incorporated as defendant No. 12 who appeared in the present case and submitted her written statement in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Subsequently, in the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 24-A/2023 (Sushila Devi & others Vs. Rambai and others), the petitioner/applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of CPC inter alia mentioning that it 4 is evident from the plaint of the plaintiffs that 3 sale deeds dated 17.10.2012, 30.11.2012 and 07.08.2020 are challenged and permanent injunction, partition and possession was claimed in the civil suit. 3. Reply of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC was given by the plaintiffs denying the averments made by the petitioner/applicant and it was also requested to reject the application moved by the petitioner. 4. The application moved by the petitioner and the reply filed by the plaintiffs were considered by the Trial Court and it was held that the issues have already been framed in the present case and one issue No. 11 has been framed as "whether the plaintiffs have paid appropriate court fees on proper valuation of the suit" and held can only be decided after the evidence as the valuation of court fees is mixed question of law as well as facts and it only be considered on merits after the evidences of both the parties. Accordingly, the application moved by the petitioner was decided. For the reason that in the suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiffs are free to make their own valuation relief sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted, but, the Court is also required to see on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the valuation of the arbitrary, unreasonable and the 5 plaint has been demonstratively undervalue, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. For the reason that where the objective standard of valuation is available the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to put and arbitrary valuation de hors such objective materials and standards. The Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that part of the subject property which is under challenge is also a diverted property and the building over the subject property has been constructed, which itself suggests the suit filed by the plaintiffs is undervalued. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant/defendant No.12 submits that the plaintiffs have wrongly valued the suit while ignoring the value of the documents, i.e., the aforesaid sale deeds 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. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and perused the record as well as the impugned order. 7. From perusal of the plaint, it seems that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title, declaration of the afore- mentioned sale deeds to be null and void and for partition and separate possession. They have also filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, relief of declaration of sale deeds to be null and void has also been sought along with the relief of declaration of the Power of Attorney 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 the sale deeds to be null and void along with possession and permanent injunction, in the shape of alienating the suit property. 8. As of now, since the plaintiffs are also seeking declaration of the sale deeds to be null and void, as such there is dispute regarding valuation of the plaint. However, the same cannot be adjudicated on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC as 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. 9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has already framed as many as 12 issues on 17.12.2024 and vide 7 issue No.11 the Trial Court has framed issue in respect of valuation of the suit and required Court fees affixed on the same. Issue No.11 reads as under: “sD;k oknhx.k }kjk okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj leqfpr U;k;ky; 'kqYd lafLFkr fd;k x;k gS\” 10. Since issue has already been framed in respect of valuation of the suit and the Court fees affixed on the plaint, the Trial Court has rightly held that for deciding aforesaid issue evidence is required to be taken as it is mixed question of law and fact. As such, the Trial Court has further rightly disposed of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(b) read with Section 15 of the CPC. The Trial Court has further fixed the matter for evidence as directed by this Court. The parties were directed to remain present their witnesses. Defendants No.10 and 12 were directed to file copy of evidence of all the witnesses to be filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and the copy be supplied to the opposite party. The Court has said that day to day hearing will be taken. The Trial Court has further fixed the case for recording of evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses on 18.6.2025, 19.6.2025 and 24.6.2025, as such from the aforesaid order no illegality or perversity could be found. The Trial Court has rightly passed the aforesaid order which need not to be interfered with. However, in order to do complete justice and further to avoid any ambiguity in respect of jurisdiction of the Court, the Trial Court is directed to decide 8 issue of valuation and Court fees as preliminary issue and if the Trial Court finds that valuation has not been correctly made and if upon proper valuation it would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court then the same may be considered expeditiously. However, if the Trial Court finds that the pecuniary jurisdiction would not be ousted then the Trial Court may decide the case in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh