1 2025:CGHC:58077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 247 of 2025 1 - Chinmay Builders Private Limited Through The Managing Director, Prakash Dawda, S/o Shri Magan Lal Dawda, S/o Shri Magan Lal Dawda, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Office Address A-2, Third Floor, Pushpak Apartment, Chhotapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Def. No. 02) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Shiv Kumar Dheemar S/o Late Pyarelal Dheemar R/o Qtr. No. 1297, Dhangar Chowk, Near Sheetla Mandir, Tikarapara, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Their Power Of Attorney Holder Narendra Kumar Jain, S/o Late Devichand Jee Jain, R/o C-294, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No. 01). 2 - Raju Dheemar S/o Late Pyarelal Dheemar R/o Qtr. No. 1297, Dhangar Chowk, Near Sheetla Mandir, Tikarapara, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Their Power Of Attorney Holder Narendra Kumar Jain, S/o Late Devichand Jee Jain, R/o C-294, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No. 02). 3 - Nandu Dheemar S/o Late Pyarelal Dheemar R/o Qtr. No. 1297, Dhangar Chowk, Near Sheetla Mandir, Tikarapara, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Their Power Of Attorney Holder Narendra Kumar Jain, S/o Late Devichand Jee Jain, R/o C-294, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No. 03). 4 - Laxmi Narayan Dheemar S/o Late Pyarelal Dheemar R/o Qtr. No. 1297, Dhangar Chowk, Near Sheetla Mandir, Tikarapara, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Their Power Of Attorney Holder Narendra Kumar Jain, S/o Late Devichand Jee Jain, R/o C-294, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No. 04). 5 - Smt. Mamta Sharma W/o Shri Ratanchandra Sharma R/o Deepak Apartment Kankalipara, Budhatalab, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Def. No. 01). 6 - Dharmendra Trivedi S/o Late Shri Umesh Chandra Trivedi R/o B- 204, Siddharth Samanvayt-2, In Front Of P.P.R. Cinema, Nizampura, Hainy Road, Vadodara, Gujarat 390002 (Def. No. 03). 7 - M/s Pragati Buildcom A Partner Firm, Shri Sandip Verma, S/o Late Shri D.P. Verma, R/o C-4, Surya Vihar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Def. No. 04). 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Def. No. 05) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/11/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “(i) Call for records of the learned Courts below, (ii) allow the instant revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (ANN A-1), passed in Civil Suit No. 401A/2024 by the learned VITH Additional Judge to 3 the Court of Civil Judge Class I Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). (iii) In consequence to above allow the application under Order 07 Rule 11 C.P.C 1908 filed by the Defendant No.2 / Applicant and reject the plaint in Civil Suit No. 401A/2024, pending before the learned VITH Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class 1 Junior Division, District Raipur (CG).” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent Nos. 01 to 04/Plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein they have asserted that their grandfather, Chhotelal, was the original title holder of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 576/5, 576/15, 576/19, 578/3 and 578/1, admeasuring a total area of 0.862 hectares situated at Village Tikarapara (Lalpur), P.H. No. 114 (New No. 70), R.C. Raipur-11, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.), that permission for sale of the said property was granted under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, vide order dated 21.11.1988, and although such permission was issued for effecting sale in favour of Jalaram Grih Nirman Samiti, the property was in fact sold to the predecessors in title of defendant No. 03, namely Umesh Kumar Trivedi and Nita Acharya, and was thereafter further sold to defendant No. 01 through a registered sale deed dated 08.10.1990 on the basis of permission dated 24.02.1990, that the plaintiffs have themselves admitted that the earlier sale deed dated 29.11.1988 executed in favour of the 4 aforesaid Umesh Kumar Trivedi and Nita Acharya, as well as the subsequent sale deed dated 08.10.1990 executed in favour of defendant No. 02, are already under challenge in Civil Suit No. 378A/2024, wherein a declaration has been sought to declare the said sale deeds null, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs, that defendant No. 02 had also instituted a separate suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the same property, which, however, came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.06.2024, that the plaintiffs have now filed the present suit on 13.09.2024 claiming that the cause of action first arose on 22.06.2024, i.e., the date on which the suit filed by defendant No. 02 was dismissed, though the property had long since devolved upon them after the demise of their grandfather Chhotelal, followed by the death of their father Pyarelal on 13.09.1995, and subsequently upon them and their mother Smt. Sita Bai, who also passed away on 02.07.2017, that upon issuance of summons, the present Applicant appeared before the Trial Court and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC asserting that the cause of action as pleaded was false, frivolous and misleading, and that the judgment dated 22.06.2024 could not constitute a cause of action since it has not attained finality in view of the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 124A/2024, rendering the suit pretentious and premature, that the plaintiffs filed their reply denying these assertions and maintaining that the cause of action had correctly been pleaded and that 5 pendency of an appeal does not render the present suit premature, and that despite these facts, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 29.07.2025, dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without appreciating the true scope and object of the said provision and summarily rejected the application on the ground that the submissions of the applicant did not appear to be rational. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is wholly illusory and does not, in any manner, subsist in the eyes of law, and therefore, the very foundation of the suit stands vitiated; as a consequence, on this ground alone, the plaint deserves to be rejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, without subjecting the parties to an unnecessary trial. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and further bearing in mind the well-settled legal position repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, it becomes evident that the plea sought to be raised by the applicant cannot be accepted at this preliminary stage, inasmuch as the question of cause of action—being a bundle of facts requiring detailed examination—can only be appropriately 6 adjudicated during the course of the trial upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, and therefore such an issue cannot be conclusively determined while deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Accordingly, the revision being of devoid merits is hereby dismissed. 8. However, the defendants are always at liberty to raise these grounds before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat