1 2025:CGHC:43270 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 220 of 2025 1 - Shankar Prasad Soni S/o Mathura Ram Soni Aged About 58 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal (Wrongly Mentioned As Jaiswal In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) Chitra Mandir, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Defendant No. 1). 2 - Shanti Soni W/o Shankar Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal (Wrongly Mentioned As Jaiswal In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) Chitra Mandir, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Defendant No. 2). 3 - Rahul Soni S/o Shankar Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal (Wrongly Mentioned As Jaiswal In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) Chitra Mandir, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Defendant No. 3) ... Applicant(s) versus RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1 - Shyam Narayan Pandey S/o Late Ram Kripal Pandey Aged About 54 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Plaintiff No. 1). 2 - Sudhir Kumar Pandey S/o Late Deendayal Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Plaintiff No. 2). 3 - Smt. Poonam Nagdev W/o Ashok Kumar Nagdev Aged About 42 Years R/o Joda Peepal Nagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Defendant No. 4). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. This civil revision has been preferred against the order dated 05.08.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2023 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. By way of this revision the applicant has prayed for following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that Hon'ble Court 3 may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 05 08:2025 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (CG) passed in Civil Suit /11A/2023 and the suit filed by the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with costs in the interest of Justice." 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the plaintiffs had initially instituted a civil suit seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, praying that the disputed land admeasuring 311 sq. ft. forms an integral part of Khasra No. 534, which, according to them, is their exclusive property under ownership and possession, and further sought a decree restraining the defendants from entering upon the said land raising any construction thereon, or otherwise interfering with their peaceful possession During the pendency of the proceedings the plaintiffs, by way of amendment altered the nature of the relief originally claimed and incorporated an additional prayer seeking vacant possession of the suit land by asserting their ownership, further demanding demolition of the structure alleged to have been raised illegally by defendants No 1 to 3, and consequential delivery of open and vacant possession thereof in their favour Upon such amendment being petitioners/defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that once 4 the plaintiffs have claimed relief of possession and demolition, they are mandatorily required to value the suit on the basis of the market value of the disputed land, and to pay the appropriate ad valorem court fee thereon. It was further contended that upon such proper valuation being made, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court would be ousted, thereby rendering the suit not maintainable before the said Court. 4. The defendants have filed the present application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff possession of the suit property. It is further contended that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has amended the relief clause, but has failed to pay the requisite and adequate court fee thereon According to the defendants, if the proper and correct court fee is calculated and paid the valuation of the suit would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court thereby rendering it incompetent to entertain the matter. Hence, the defendants have prayed that the plaint deserves to be rejected not only on account of non- payment of proper court fee, but also for want of jurisdiction. 5. The applicant has specifically contended that if the suit has been duly and properly valued in accordance with law, the valuation so made would falls not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. Accordingly, the objection raised with regard to improper 5 valuation or lack of jurisdiction is required to be considered which was not considered. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that there exists a serious dispute regarding the proper valuation of the suit as well as the adequacy of the court fees paid thereon. It is contended that if the suit is rightly valued and proper court fees are assessed in accordance with law, the valuation would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, thereby rendering the proceedings beyond its competence. Despite this legal infirmity the trial Court has erroneously dismissed/rejected the applicant's objection Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition before this Hon'ble Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and carefully perused the documents appended with the revision petition. It is a well-settled principle of law under the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure that, while adjudicating an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is required to confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint alone, without entering into the defence set up by the defendant or any other extraneous consideration. The application, therefore, has to be decided solely on the basis of the pleadings contained in the plaint and not upon the merits of the defence raised. 6 8. The defendant has raised objections with regard to possession, whereas the plaintiff contends that the issue of possession has already been duly incorporated and addressed by way of amendment in the plaint. 9. In the matter of Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112, it has observed as under:- “7. Section 7(iv) (c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7." 10. In the matter of Sujir Keshav Nayak vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 731, it has observed as under:- "3…... A plaintiff may over or undervalue the suit for purposes of avoiding a court of a particular grade. In the former the plaint may be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 for presentation in proper court but in latter it is liable to be rejected. Since undervaluation goes to the root of maintainability of the suit a defendant is entitled to raise 7 the objection irrespective of the nature of the suit. ………………………………………….. The law on this aspect, thus, should be taken to be as under: (1) Where the question of court fee is linked with jurisdiction a defendant has a right to raise objection and the court should decide it as a preliminary issue. …………………..” 11. In the matter of Sabir Mohammed Yusuf vs. Sabir Abdul Rahman, 2008 SCC Online All 430, it has observed as under:- “9. However, in this case the issue is whether the prayer, as made consequential or not to pay the Court fees in accordance with existing law. 10. Section 7(iv)(c) speaks that to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, plaintiff will have to state the amount at which he values the relief sought Similarly, under section (v) in suits for the possession of the land, houses and gardens etc it will be on the basis of the subject matter. 11. According to us in this case the consequential relief can not be said to be bare and mere incidental relief but a substantive relief in respect of the land in 8 question It is rightly held that 'Benami' means one is accepting anybody's substantive right in the property then seeking to dispossess him. This is not a bare relief to dispossess a licensee as per claim. It may be that the same is hidden course but we have to go by the plaint. 12. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity is passing the order by the leamed Judge of the Court below directing the plaintiff/appellant to pay the ad valorem Court fees.” 12. The learned trial Court, while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has dismissed the objection raised by the appellant/defendant. It has been held that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to be adjudicated solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and not on the defence set up by the defendant The Court observed that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had amended the plaint by incorporating a relief of possession and also sought a direction for demolition of the alleged construction and delivery of vacant possession. The Trial Court further recorded that there is no illegality or infirmity in the manner of valuation of the suit or in the payment of court fees by the plaintiff. It has been specifically held that once the plaintiff has 9 sought relief of possession and demolition during the pendency of the suit, the same does not require fresh valuation or affixation of additional court fees as alleged by the defendant. Hence, the objection raised by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was found to be without substance and accordingly rejected. 13. If a dispute is raised regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the Court is required to examine the matter in relation to the pecuniary issue and frame the relevant issue accordingly Upon perusal of the plaint and the objections raised in the application concerning the framing of issues, if it is revealed that the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the suit cannot be dismissed summarily at the threshold merely on the basis of the objections raised. 14. Accordingly, the trial court is required to ascertain the proper valuation of the suit and determine the adequacy of court fees before proceeding further, after framing preliminary issues and conducting evidence upon the same, if it is ultimately concluded that the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, appropriate action can be taken in accordance with law. However, until such conclusion is reached, the trial court must continue to exercise its jurisdiction and decide the matter on merits. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and directions, the civil 10 revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat