1 2025:CGHC:40246 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 207 of 2025 1 - Avasa Developers And Infratech Through Its Partner Nrendra Kumar Jain, S/o Late Devichand Jain, Aged About 50 Years, R/o C-294, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Brijbhushan Lal Sharma Aged About 54 Years R/o Near Kota Stadium, Kota, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Bhavisha Waliramani W/o Manoj Waliramani Aged About 36 Years R/o Sector-5, Near Durga Temple, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Shivraj Sharma S/o Sanjay Sharma Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Kota Stadium, Kota, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Mritunjay Sharma S/o Sanjay Sharma Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Kota Stadium, Kota, Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Narendra Kumar Jain S/o Late Devichand Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Through Assistant Engineer Shri Tarachand Sinha, S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Sinha, Division No. 1, Sirpur Primises Kabir Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Collectorate, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 -Competent Authority Under Land Ceiling And Regulation Act, 1976, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. By way of this civil revision, the petitioners are seeking the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to challenge the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by learned 11th District Judge, Raipur (Annexure P/1) in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2024, whereby the learned Court has rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The petitioners by way of this criminal revision prays for exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC and in exercise thereof call for the records of the case from the trial Court and after hearing the parties, set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 while the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and in effect, dismiss the civil suit with cost. 2. Facts of the case are that on 10.12.2024 respondent no. 1/plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration of the land being part of Khasra No. 613/37, 613/38 admeasuring area about 0.251 hectare and part of Khasra no. 613/37, 613/38 admeasuring about 0.252 hectare situated at village Sondangari, P.H.No. 36, R.I. Circle 3 Raipur-4, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) as the valid possession was given on 25.08.1989 under Section 10(1) and 10(3) Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 and Section 3(1)(A) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and permanent injunction against the defendant no. 1 to 6(petitioners herein). After summon, on 18.02.2025 petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. By way of the application (Annexure P/3), thus prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff(respondent no. 1 herein) has not disclosed the cause of action, not valued the suit property as per market value and have not paid the court fees as per the Court Fees Act, 1870. Subsequently, on 08.04.2025 respondent no. 1 filed his reply (Annexure P-4) to the application and denied all the averments raised by the petitioners in the said application and further submitted that in order to delay the trial petitioners thus, have filed the application which is devoid of merits as it is clearly stated that the cause of action as well as paid the Court fees also. 3. Further facts of the case are such that, learned trial Court after hearing both the respective parties dismissed the petitioners application stating that the points raised by the petitioners are mixed question of law and facts which can only be decided after adducing evidence and passed the impugned order dated 10.07.2025( Annexure P/1) 4. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the 4 impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law and in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected in an illegal manner. There is no cause of action against the petitioners herein who are defendant no. 1 to 6. The respondent/plaintiff has failed to state any cause of action for adjudication of the said suit. However, it has not been considered. 5. The second argument which has been raised by the counsel for the applicants is in respect of adjudicating the necessary parties and date of knowledge for filing the suit. He states that learned trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff has not made necessary party to the suit, as the legal heirs of the Umendra Singh who executed the sale deeds of suit property have not been made party to the suit, therefore, only on the ground of misjoinder of the party the plaint has been rejected. Moreover he submits that the said suit is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff is not in possession and in spite of that the possession has not been sought. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the grounds raised by the petitioners are untenable as they are contrary to the well-established norms. Thus opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the 5 documents appended to the criminal revision. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case and further considering that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases has held that for adjudication of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC only the plaint averments are required to be seen. The defense as raised by the defendant cannot be looked into at this stage. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs Dinesh Kumar Agarwal reported in (2022) 10 SCC 235 in para 33 has held as under:- “As per the settled position of law, at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments and allegations in the application/plaint are to be considered and not the written statement and/or reply to the application and/or the defence. Therefore, as such the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.” 9. The issue of couse of action is a bundle of facts which requires adjudication in the trial. Like wise non-joinder of necessary parties are issues to be dealt with after necessary evidence in the trial. So far as suit to be barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, since ancillary relief in the shape of permanent injunction has been raised by the plaintiff as such in the preliminary stage it cannot be decided. 10. Considering the overall aspect of the matter, this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned 11th District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2024 and allow the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and in effect, dismiss the civil suit with cost. 6 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submits that he may be allowed to file an appropriate application before the concerned trial Court for framing preliminary issues in respect of cause of action. 12. The petitioners are always at liberty to file appropriate application before the concerned trial Court, as prayed and the concerned Trial Court may decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. 13. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty, the present civil revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed, without noticing to the other side. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge alfiza