1 2025:CGHC:1870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 7 of 2025 1 - Smt. Madhuri Tiwari W/o Late Shrikant Tiwari Aged About 48 Years 2 - Shreyansh Tiwari S/o Late Shrikant Tiwari Aged About 15 Years 3 - Shreejan Tiwari S/o Late Shrikant Tiwari Aged About 14 Years Applicants No.2 & 3 are minors Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Madhuri Tiwari W/o Late Shrikant Tiwari All are R/o Village Payla, Post Mahud (B), Tahsil- Gundardehi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ...Applicants versus 1 - Smt. Mamta Sharma W/o Kaushalendra Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 912, Ward No. 11, Amapara, Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhushan Lal Tiwari (Died) R/o Village Payla, Post Mahud (B), Tahsil- Gundardehi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Kumaresh Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.01.14 15:55:20 +0530 2 For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 13/01/2025 1. This Revision Petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 17.10.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.10A/2023 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the father of respondent No.1/plaintiff (now died) during his lifetime filed a Civil Suit on 23.09.2023 for partition by making an averment inter alia that the suit property is the ancestral property and to the extent of her share the gift deed executed by her father is null and void and not binding on her. In the said Civil Suit for permanent injunction and damages, the applicants have raised the objection that the suit property is the self-acquired property of her father and therefore, during his lifetime, such a nature of suit could not be filed and the said objection has been dismissed by observing that whether the property is self-acquired or not is to be decided during trial. Hence this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is bad in law and during the lifetime of her father, a partition suit cannot be filed by the legal heirs and prays to allow the Revision. 3 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the averments made in the plaint that respondent No.1/plaintiff specifically averred that the suit property is the ancestral property and the alienation made by her father is under challenge, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 5. Resultantly, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka