1 2025:CGHC:35440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 182 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Kumar Patle S/o Shri Indrabhushan Patle Aged About 35 Years Caste Satnami R/o Village Janjgir C/o Kamla Devi Patle Ex- Member Of Legislative Assembly, Janjgir Loksabha Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Manjusha Patle W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Patle Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 21 Maruti Township Chmapa Tahsil Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Twinkle Patle D/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Patle Aged About 7 Years R/o Ward No. 21 Maruti Township Champa Tahsil Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Minors) Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Manjusha Patle Aged About 31 Years W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Patle R/o Ward No. 21 Maruti Township Champa Tahsil Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3 - Garima Patle D/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Patle Aged About 3 Years R/o Ward No. 21 Maruti Township Champa Tahsil Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Minors) Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Manjusha Patle Aged About 31 Years W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Patle R/o Ward No. 21 Maruti Township Champa Tahsil Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (23.07.2025) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition/appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Court of 5th District Judge, Janjgir District Janjgir, in Civil Suit No. A Class/19/2024, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that the application lacked merit and did not disclose sufficient grounds for rejection of the plaint. 2. Parties are referred herein to their original status as in the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the civil suit was filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present appellant, who was the defendant before the trial court. The plaintiffs claimed a ¾ share in the suit property, described as land bearing Khasra No. 947/5 measuring 0.03 acres along with a house thereon (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”). They further contended that the sale deed executed in favour of one Amit Patle was null and void. The defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit on the grounds that the defendant had purchased the Suit Property from his own income and had the right to dispose of it, thereby challenging the plaintiffs’ locus standi. It was also contended that the suit property was valued at Rs. 30 lakhs and the 3 plaintiffs had prayed for declaration of the sale deed dated 21.11.2023 as null and void, but had failed to pay the requisite court fees fixed on the valuation, rendering the suit non-maintainable. Further, non-joinder of necessary parties was raised as a ground for dismissal. The plaintiffs replied that they were not parties to the sale deed, hence not liable to pay ad valorem court fees, that all necessary parties had been properly arrayed, and that the defenses raised were matters to be decided at trial involving mixed questions of law and fact. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was prima facie not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, submitting that the trial court rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, observing that the grounds raised by the defendant involved disputed questions of fact and law, which require framing of issues and trial, and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection. 6. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raises objections relating to payment of court fees, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, and validity of the sale deed. It is well-settled law that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. Defenses raised in the written statement or the application are not to be examined at this stage. 4 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should not be allowed where there is a bona fide dispute requiring proper adjudication through trial. The issues raised are to be decided after framing of issues and recording of evidence. Since the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed, they are not liable to pay the ad valorem court fee fixed on the value of the suit property. 8. The trial court rightly relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors. [(2010) 12 SCC 112] and the coordinate bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Neelam Dagla v. Sawrn Gond & Anr [2019 SCC Online Chh 56]. 9. The grounds raised by defendant No. 1 are clearly matters for trial and cannot be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Consequently, the present revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order to warrant interference. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with the above observations and directions. No order as to costs. Let a certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA