1 2025:CGHC:33509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 171 of 2025 1 - Om Prakash Gupta S/o Late Shri Jagannath Prasad Gupta Aged About 66 Years R/o House No. 103- A Anand Lok Colony, Matiyari Chouraha, Chinhat, Lucknow (U.P.) (Defendant ). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Kiran Gupta D/o Late Shri Narsingh Prasad Gupta Aged About 53 Years Posted As Secretary At Office Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sangh Maryadit Van- Dhan-Bhawan, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following prayer:- Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this civil revision and to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned 7th Additional Judge of First Civil Judge Junior Class Raipur Chhattisgarh in civil suit no. 170-B/2023, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the grievance of the applicant is that the respondent/plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No. 170-B/2023 before the learned 7th Additional Judge, First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh for seeking recovery to the tune of Rs. 81,832/- against the applicant. In the said suit, the present applicant/defendant has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff has filed a reply denying all the averments made in the application. However, the learned Civil Court, without considering the material available on record dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 07.05.2025. The impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed this revision against the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 by which the application has filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed. He further submits that the has filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground 3 that the suit is barred by limitation and further on the basis of jurisdiction of the Court. He further submits that this Court may kindly be allowed this civil revision and to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 which is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. So far as limitation part is concerned it is mixed questions of law and fact and it can be only adjudicated in the trial after leading evidence of the parties. 6. For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC only plaint averments are required to be seen and not any defense to be raised by the defendant as such the trial Court has rightly held that it can be decided during the course of trial after taking evidence of the parties. So far as jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Court has also been held to be the limits where the parties are either residing or the cause of action arose. Even if part of cause of action arose is any place the said place would be having jurisdiction to try the suit on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and also considering the fact that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and I do not find any good ground to interfere in this revision. 4 8. Accordingly, the revision filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat