1 2025:CGHC:34735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 143 of 2023 1 - Dilip Banjare S/o Jhadu Ram Banjare Aged About 45 Years By Caste Satnami, R/o Village Sirsakala, P.S. Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant) 2 - Smt. Paraga Banjare W/o Dilip Banjare Aged About 42 Years By Caste Satnami, R/o Village Sirsakala, P.S. Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant) ... Applicants versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Narayan Das Aged About 39 Years By Caste Panika, R/o Village Kumhali, Tahsil And Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) (Plaintiffs) 2 - Ishwar Das S/o Narayan Das Aged About 53 Years By Caste Panika, R/o Sainagar Road, Mahadevghat Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No.4) ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant No.3/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. By way of this civil revision, the applicants has prayed for following relief:- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 18:49:33 +0530 2 “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the case for its kind perusal. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash the impugned order dated 08.09.23 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Patan is illegal and erroneous and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC be granted/allowed. 3. That, cost of the petition be allowed. 4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, according to facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present applicants are the purchasers of agricultural land situated at Village Kumhali, P.H. No. 31, R.N.M. Patan, District Durg, recorded in Khasra No. 854/1 admeasuring 1.23 hectares. The said land was originally recorded in the name of Smt. Ram Bai, the mother of Non-Applicants No. 1 and 2. On 14.07.2021, Non-Applicant No. 2, in the absence of his brother Non-Applicant No. 1, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the present applicants with respect to the suit land. Non- Applicant No. 1, claiming rights over the said property, filed a Civil Suit No. 13A/23 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, District Durg. In the said suit, Non-Applicant No. 1 sought declaration of the sale deed dated 14.07.2021 as null and void, along with relief for permanent injunction against the present 3 applicants. The applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding stamp duty and court fees under the Indian Stamp Act, 1870. The Trial Court, however, proceeded with the suit without deciding the objections raised by the applicants. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants have preferred the present civil revision challenging the maintainability of the said civil suit on legal grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, Patan, District Durg, is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, as the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the legal objections raised by the applicants in their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is further submitted that the applicants had specifically raised the ground that the civil suit filed by Non-Applicant No. 1 suffers from non-compliance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1870 as well as the requirement of proper court fee, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable in its present form. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider this vital legal aspect and proceeded to entertain the suit contrary to settled principles of law. The learned counsel further submits that the applicants have lawfully purchased the suit property through a registered sale 4 deed dated 14.07.2021 and have been made parties unnecessarily in the civil suit filed by Non-Applicant No. 1 without any legal justification. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to record any reasoned finding on the objection raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which goes to the root of the matter. Instead, the Court has proceeded mechanically without addressing the mandatory legal requirements, thereby causing grave prejudice to the applicants. It is humbly submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, passed in haste, without proper appreciation of law and facts, and has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the applicants, who are bonafide purchasers. As such, prayed that the order passed by the Trial Court be set aside and further be allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thereby rejecting the plaint as not maintainable in law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff (Non-Applicant No. 1) is fully maintainable in law and has been rightly entertained by the learned Trial Court. The present applicants are trying to frustrate the adjudication of rightful civil claims by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on frivolous and baseless grounds. It is submitted that the plaintiff / Non-Applicant No. 1 has challenged the registered sale deed dated 14.07.2021 on the ground that it was executed fraudulently by Non-Applicant No. 2 without any authority or consent from Non-Applicant No. 1, despite the fact that the suit 5 property is ancestral and jointly recorded in the name of their mother. The challenge is fundamentally about title, rights, and fraud, which cannot be decided merely on the basis of technical objections like court fee or stamp duty. It is further submitted that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to decide disputed questions of fact. Whether or not the sale deed is valid or fraudulent requires detailed trial, evidence, and adjudication on merits. The applicants are attempting to preempt the trial by raising hyper-technical objections which are untenable in law. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the plaintiff’s application and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. There is no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in revision. The objections raised by the applicants regarding stamp duty and court fees have already been addressed by the Trial Court, and the suit is rightly being adjudicated. The applicants' claim that the suit is barred for non- payment of proper stamp duty is misconceived. The Stamp Duty Act does not bar the maintainability of a declaratory suit regarding cancellation of a fraudulent sale deed, and appropriate stamp duty, if found lacking, can be directed to be paid during the course of proceedings. It is not a ground to summarily reject the plaint. The learned counsel for the State submits that the applicants have not suffered any legal prejudice, and they will have full opportunity to defend their case during the trial. Therefore, the 6 present civil revision deserves to be dismissed at the threshold as being misconceived and premature. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents along with this civil revision. 7. Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC: Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC provides for rejection of a plaint at the threshold on certain specific legal grounds. These grounds are purely procedural in nature and are limited to examining the pleadings in the plaint alone, not the defence of the defendant or disputed questions of fact. The grounds include: • When the plaint does not disclose a cause of action; • When the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct it despite opportunity; • When the plaint is insufficiently stamped and the deficiency is not rectified despite opportunity; • When the suit appears barred by law. 8. It is well-settled that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered, and not the defence or any disputed facts raised by the defendant. 9. A mixed question of fact and law is one where the answer depends not solely on the application of legal principles, but also 7 requires determination of disputed factual issues through evidence. Examples include disputes about title, possession, fraud, undue influence, valuation of property, and whether the plaintiff is in possession or not. When such questions arise, they cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold stage without trial, because the Court cannot assume facts or evaluate evidence while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 10. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly held that where disputed questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact arise, the suit cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Such issues must be adjudicated by the Civil Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence. In the matter of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, the Supreme Court held that Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC can be invoked only if the plaint on the face of it shows that the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action. If the question requires evidence and adjudication, the suit cannot be rejected at the threshold. 11. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, has held that plaint alone must be examined for Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and where the matter involves determination of disputed facts, such application cannot be entertained. 8 12. In another matter of Kamala vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 661, the Supreme Court clarified that where the claim involves mixed questions of law and fact, those issues are to be decided only after evidence is led during trial. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not the proper stage for such an inquiry. 13. Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the records of the Trial Court, and upon careful examination of the legal position, this Court finds no substance in the present Civil Revision. 14. The primary objection raised by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC pertains to alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1870 and Court Fees Act. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issues raised in the civil suit, particularly regarding the validity of the registered sale deed dated 14.07.2021, involve serious disputed questions of fact and law, including allegations of fraud and rights over ancestral property, which require full-fledged trial and cannot be summarily decided at the threshold stage under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 15. It is well-settled law that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be invoked only where the plaint on the face of it is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action. In the present case, the plaint clearly discloses cause of action, and the question of proper valuation, stamp duty, or court fees, if any, can be adjudicated during the 9 course of the proceedings and cannot be made a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold. 16. The learned Trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error nor any material irregularity in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and proceeding with the trial. 17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 18. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned learned Trial Court on the next date fixed for further proceedings. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh