1 2025:CGHC:33738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 170 of 2025 1 - Banshilal Dewangan S/o Late Ramji Dewangan Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Devpur, P.O. Kandel, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, 2 - Chandrabhama Dewangan W/o Shri Banshilal Dewangan Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Devpur, P.O. Kandel, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhagwan Das S/o Shri Banshilal Dewangan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Devpur, P.O. Kandel, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - Tejram Dewangan S/o Shri Banshilal Dewangan Aged About 52 Years R/o Near D.M.K. Colony, Dharampura, Behind Degree College, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Kumari Bai W/o Guman Singh Dewangan Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kesla (Kharora) Tahsil Kharora, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1 - Parmeshwar Dewangan S/o Shri Banshi Lal Dewangan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Devpur, Post Kandel, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, 2 - Ishwar Dayal Dewangan S/o Shri Banshilal Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Selud, Post Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Indu Bai W/o Shri Laxman Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Village Koliyari, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.19 15:43:09 +0530 2 4 - Bindu Bai W/o Shri Bhuwan Lal Dewangan Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bhendri (Suregaon) Post Suregaon, District Doundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh 5 - Sandeep Sonkar S/o Shri Siyaram Sonkar Aged About 32 Years R/o Laxmi Nivas Chowk Gokulpur, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, 6 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 7 - Siyaram Sonkar S/o Late Budhram Sonkar Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Laxmi Nivas Chowk Gokulpur, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State/respondent No.6 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/defendants No. 1 to 5, challenging the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 55-A/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the applications filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). 2. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- 3 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to allow this civil revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure A-1), passed by the Court of Third Civil Judge Junior Class Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.55-A/2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the non-applicants/plaintiffs had instituted Civil Suit No. 55-A/2019 before the learned Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhamtari (C.G.), seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 23.11.2015 is null and void, as well as seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, as detailed in Schedule A and Schedule B of the plaint. In the said suit, the present applicants/defendants No. 1 to 5 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), alleging that the Plaintiffs had failed to properly verify the donation letter and sale deed. On this basis, the applicants/defendants sought rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. However, it appears there is also a reference to an application under Order 11 Rule 7 of of CPC, which the applicants filed for dismissal of the said civil suit. The plaintiffs/non-applicants filed their reply and specifically denied the allegations raised in the said applications. The learned Civil Court, by the impugned order dated 08.05.2025, 4 dismissed the said application filed by the present applicants/ defendants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the suit is barred by limitation by 10 days and further, the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit. Therefore, it ought to have been rejected by the learned trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record with due care. 6. The legal position governing the consideration of applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is well settled. Such applications are to be adjudicated solely on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint. The defence raised by the defendants cannot be looked into for the purpose of deciding such an application. 7. In the present case, the question of limitation and the valuation of the suit have been specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint itself. The question of limitation, as is well settled, involves a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be decided without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. Similarly, the issue of valuation of the suit requires framing of specific issues and cannot be decided summarily at this stage. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed by the applicants. 5 8. Considering the matter in its entirely, this Court find no merit in this civil revision and the same deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh