1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 219 of 2024 1 - Navratan Banjare @ Narottamdas Banjare S/o Mangal Banjare Aged About 50 Years Gram Sanakhan And Pisid, Taluka Kasdol, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, ( C.G.). … Applicant versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Banjare S/o Late Sahettarlal Aged About 48 Years Taluka Nagar Panchayat Bhatgaon, Ward No. 09, Tah. Bhatgaon, Distt- Sarangarh- Bhilaigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Narayan Devdas S/o Sharad Devdas Aged About 45 Years Gram Sanakhan And Pisid, Taluka Kasdol, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, ( C.G.). --- Respondent(s) None for the parties. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. None appears on behalf of either party, even during the second round. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 2. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 03.08.2024, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 3. It was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and has not affixed the correct court fee; hence, the suit is liable to be rejected. It was further submitted that the suit is barred by limitation. 4. The learned Trial Court, after considering the submissions advanced by both parties, held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided at this stage. Insofar as valuation is concerned, the Trial Court has directed the plaintiff to value the suit appropriately. 5. In the considered view of this Court, there appears to be no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 115 of the CPC. The impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha