1 2025:CGHC:34730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 169 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Lohadia, Post- Dasharangpur, Tehsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Rakesh Jaiswal S/o Parmeshwar Jaiswal Aged About 18 Years R/o Village And Post - Kodwabani, Tehsil And District- Mungeli, (C.G.). 2 - Mrs. Shanti Bai Jaiswal W/o Parmeshwar Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post- Kodwabani, Tehsil And District- Mungeli, (C.G.). 3 - Miss Garima Jaiswal D/o Parmeshwar Jaiswal Aged About 9 Years Minor, Through Mother And Natural Guardian Mrs. Shantibai Jaiswal, R/o Village And Psot- Kodwabani, Tehsil And District- Mungeli, (C.G.). 4 - Rekhchand Keshar S/o Udalsingh Keshar Aged About 38 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Village- Kodwabani, Tehsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.). 5 - Govind Prasad Navrang S/o Bhupendra Das Aged About 48 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village- Baihakapa, Post- Deori, Tehsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.). 6 - Parmeshwar Jaiswal S/o Ajuram Jaiswal Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post- Kodwabani, Tehsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli, Tehsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 03/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 03/2025 is hereby allowed. 3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “9.1.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Call for the records of Civil Suit A Class Case No. 11A/2024 pending before the Civil Judge Class-II District Mungeli (C.G). 9.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17/03/2025 passed in IA No. 01/24 in Civil Suit A Class Case No. 11A/2024. 9.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Allow the said application and reject the plaint as not 3 disclosing any cause of action and being devoid of merit. 9.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Brief facts of the case, is that, applicant is challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Suit A Class Case No. 11A/2024. By this order, the learned trial court erroneously rejected the application filed by the applicant (defendant No. 1) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The applicant is defendant No. 1 in the said suit, which has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 31.05.2022 is void and seeking a permanent injunction over a portion of land measuring 148.69 sq. meters from Khaara No. 279/17 which is situated at Village Kodvabani, Revenue Circle, Dharampura, Tehsil & District Mungeli (C.G.). The land in question was legally and validly sold to the applicant by defendant No. 4, the absolute and sole owner of the suit property, through a registered sale deed for full consideration and possession was duly delivered to the applicant. The plaintiffs, who are the son, wife and minor daughter of defendant No. 4 admittedly have no independent right, title or interest in the suit land. It is a matter of record that 4 defendant No. 4, the vendor and original owner, has been regularly appearing before the trial Court in person, filing his own replies and rejoinders independently without the aid of any counsel, thereby demonstrating full mental competence and clarity of thought. However, in a clear attempt to mislead the Court and suppress material facts, the plaintiffs have falsely alleged that defendant No. 4 was unsound mind or a lunatic, and that the sale deed was executed without his conscious consent. These misleading averments constitute a fraud upon the Court and indicate that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that, in regard to the aspect of valuation of the suit and the corresponding payment of court fees, it is imperative that appropriate directions be issued to the learned trial Court to consider and adjudicate upon this issue at the very threshold. He further submits that the question of proper valuation and sufficiency of court fees strikes at the root of the jurisdiction of the court, and as such, it warrants determination as a preliminary issue under the applicable provisions of law. He further submits that unless and until the suit is correctly valued in accordance with the law and the requisite court fees are duly paid, the jurisdiction of the court seized of the matter remains in question. 5 Accordingly, it is prayed that the learned trial Court be directed to decide the issue of suit valuation and payment of court fees as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter. He further submits that the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the court below, is manifestly arbitrary, legally untenable, perverse on the face of the record, and contrary to the well-settled principles of law. It is argued that the said order not only suffers from non-application of judicial mind but also fails to address the core contentions raised by the applicant. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The issue of valuation of the suit and payment of court fees is not necessarily required to be adjudicated as a preliminary issue in every case, and the learned trial Court retains discretion in the manner and stage at which such objections are addressed. The impugned order dated 17.03.2025 does not disclose any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. 6 The learned trial Court’s approach cannot be said to be arbitrary or in violation of settled principles of law. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat