1 2025:CGHC:11997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 110 of 2023 1 - P. Apparao Naidu, (Dead) Through Lrs. 1 (A) Smt. P. Parvati W/o Late Appa Rao Aged About 48 Years R/o Railway Colony, Mandir Hausad, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 1) (A). 1.(B) Smt. Swati D/o Late Appa Rao And W/o Shri B. Ramu Aged About 32 Years R/o Kota Vidhi Raigarh Road, Parvati Puram Mandal, Parvati Puram, Vijyanagram, Andhra Pradesh, 535501 (Defendant No. 1) (B). 1. (C) Smt. R. Bhagyashri D/o Late Appa Rao And W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o H. D. Road, Second Signal C. R. P. F. Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad, Telangana (Defendant No. 1)(C). 2 - P. Swami Alias Som Naidu S/o Late Shri P. Apparao Naidu Aged About 23 Years R/o Railway Colony, Hasood Temple, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 07) ...Applicants. versus 1 - P. Sankar Rao S/o Late P. Appal Naidu Aged About 59 Years R/o Kotavidhi Raigarh Road, Parwatipuram Mandalam Parwatipuram, Vijaynagar, A.P. (Plaintiff). 2 - P. Madhav Naidu S/o Late P. Appal Naidu Aged About 47 Years R/o AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.03.12 15:36:35 +0530 2 Railway Colony, Hasood Temple, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 2). 3 - Smt. Padma D/o Late P. Appal Naidu Aged About 53 Years R/o Railway Colony, Hasood Temple, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 3). 4 - P. Diwaker Naidu S/o Late P. Venkat Ramman Naidu Aged About 22 Years R/o Railway Colony, Hasood Temple, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 4). 5 - P. Madhukar Naidu S/o Late P. Venkat Ramman Naidu Aged About 19 Years R/o Railway Colony, Hasood Temple, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 5). 6 - Smt. Ramumamnama Wd/o Late P. Venkat Ramman Naidu Aged About 45 Years R/o Railway Colony, Hasood Temple, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 6). 7 - P. Manish Naidu S/o Late Shri P. Apparao Naidu Aged About 22 Years R/o Railway Colony, Hasood Temple, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 8). 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 9) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 7 Shri Sandeep Patel appears on behalf of Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocates. For State : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 11.03.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.2/2023-application for condonation of delay in filing the instant Civil Revision. 2. There is delay of 72 days. 3. On due consideration, I.A. No.2/2023 is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. This Civil Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 3 10.03.2023 passed by 12th Civil Judge Class-2, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in I.A. No.1/2023 in Civil Suit No.6-A/2021 whereby, application preferred by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the suit is undervalued, has been dismissed. 5. Necessary facts of the case are that respondent filed suit for partition, separate possession and declaration against applicant/defendants no.1 to 8 for claiming share in the suit property situated in village Mandir Hasud, Patwari Halka No.16/73 Revenue Division Mandir hasud Tehsil Aarang District Raipur C.G. Applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for dismissal of the suit. Plaintiff/respondent submitted his reply to the application filed by the applicant and denied its averments. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the reply filed by the respondent/plaintiff it is an admitted fact that in Khasra No.509/6 a two storey house has been constructed and admittedly the plaintiff has not made valuation thereof. Hence, the order impugned is not sustainable. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that admittedly no valuation has been made in the plaint for the house which exists on the subject property, therefore, this Revision may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of plaintiff/respondent to correct the valuation and pay the court fees accordingly. 8. Counsel for the applicant would not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 9. Having considered the submissions and the fact that respondent/plaintiff himself admits that on the suit land a house has been built up for which no valuation has been made and no court fess has been paid, this Court is of the view that impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to 4 be and is accordingly set aside. 10.Respondent No.1/plaintiff is directed to correct the valuation within a period of 4 weeks of this order and pay proper court fees accordingly. 11.With the aforesaid observation, this Civil Revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash