1 2025:CGHC:44083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 223 of 2025 1 - Ramnath S/o Late Shri Sadanand Bani Aged About 65 Years R/o Kelo Vihar Near Chicken Form, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sahodra Bai W/o Bharat Lal Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Bhojpur, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (Now District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh) (C.G.) 3 - Laxmi Bai W/o Surendra Bani Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Tahsil- Gharghoda, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Govind Bani S/o Late Sadanand Bani Aged About 64 Years R/o Village- Kutela, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (Now District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh) (C.G.) 5 - Ramin Bai W/o Shri Chinta Bani Aged About 71 Years R/o Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Sarojani Bai W/o Bharat Lal Aged About 67 Years R/o Village- Kharaud, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mohan Singh Thakur (Now Dead) Through Lrs. Rajkumar @ Raju S/o Mohan Singh Thakur, Aged About 58 Years, Caste- Rajput, R/o ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Ward No. 8, Post Offie Chowk, Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (Now District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh) (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Kumar Keshawarni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (29.08.2025) 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025 – an application for condonation of delay. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 81 days is hereby condoned. 3. The default as pointed out by the Registry of this Court is concerned, the same is hereby over-ruled. 3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition/revision being aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raigarh, and transferred to the Court of Second Additional Civil Judge, Sarangarh, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No. A/3/2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the application lacked merit and did not disclose sufficient grounds for rejection of the plaint. 4. The parties shall be referred to in their respective positions as before the Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendants submits that the plaintiff 3 instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 396/1-D and 397, admeasuring 1264 sq. ft. The defendants contested the maintainability of the suit by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that; A prior suit had been instituted by the defendants, culminating in a judgment and decree dated 24.01.1994. No suit had been filed by the plaintiff within the period of limitation thereafter. The present suit has been filed belatedly and solely to frustrate execution proceedings arising out of the earlier decree. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation and liable to be rejected at the threshold. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application, holding inter alia that; The suit is one for possession and permanent injunction, and the reliefs sought are distinct from those in the earlier suit. The cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff must be examined on merits. Dismissal of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not warranted at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have carefully perused the impugned order. 7. It is a well-settled principle that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. The Court is not to look into the defenses raised in the written statement or any external material at this preliminary stage. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable where bona fide disputes exist, warranting full-fledged trial and adjudication. The issue 4 of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which requires appreciation of evidence. Similarly, the effect of the earlier suit and the judgment passed therein can only be determined upon examining the relevant documents and pleadings, which again necessitates recording of evidence. 9. In the present case, the Trial Court has rightly held that the issues raised by the defendants cannot be adjudicated at the threshold. The plea of limitation and jurisdiction are matters which must be decided after framing of proper issues and recording of evidence. 10. The order passed by the Trial Court is well-reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena