1 2025:CGHC:40242 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 70 of 2024 Smt. Shanti W/o Shri Brajbandhu Patel, Aged About 51 Years Caste Mali, R/o Village Amurra, Tahsil Baramkela, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Nilamber Ijardar, Aged About 50 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Sariya Tahsil Baramkela, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dashrath , S/o Shri Netram Jaysawal, Aged About 43 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Jhankpur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3 - Amrit, S/o Shri Netram Jayaswal Aged About 41 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Jhankpur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 4 - Kamal, S/o Shri Netram Jaysawal, Aged About 40 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Jhankpur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 5 - Netram (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 12-06-2025 6 - Hemlal Dansena S/o Late Nilamber Dansena, Aged About 55 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Sariya Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Sundarlal Dansena S/o Late Nilamber Dansena Aged About 53 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Sariya Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 8 - Ramesh Kumar Dansena, S/o Late Nilamber Dansena, Aged About 55 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Sariya Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 9 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Earlier District Raigarh) Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.13 18:18:15 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate For State/non-applicant No.9 : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. By way of this civil revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II of Raigarh Second Additional Civil Judge. Clans II, Sarangach, Raigarh. Revenue District Bilaigarh (CG) in Civil Suit No. A/17/2019 and allow the application u/o 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC and Civil District Sarangarh suit filed by the plaintiff man kindly he rejected, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial Court seeking (i) declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction over agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 964/7, area 0.033 hectare, situated at Village Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh- 3 Bilaigarh (C.G.) and (ii) declaration that the registered sale deed dated 26.09.2017 executed by Basanta (daughter of Ghasiya Kalar) in favour of defendant No.5 (present applicant, Smt. Shanti Patel) is null and void, and that defendant No.5 has no title on its basis. 3. The plaintiff valued the suit property at Rs. 2,000/- each for declarations and Rs. 100/- for injunction, affixing Court fee of Rs. 700/-. He pleaded that the suit property fell to his share in a partition, and Basanta had no right to sell it. Defendants No.1 to 5 denied the plaintiff’s claim, stating that Ghasiya had obtained title to the land through partition in 1988, which passed to Basanta by inheritance. Basanta, in turn, sold the land to defendant No.5 for Rs. 8,03,000/- via registered sale deed dated 26.09.2017. Defendant No.5 claimed lawful possession and subsequent diversion of the land for residential use. They also contended that the plaintiff undervalued the suit, failed to pay proper Court fee, and that the trial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction beyond Rs. 5,00,000/-. They further raised objections of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) read with Section 151 CPC was filed by defendants seeking rejection of the plaint on these grounds. The plaintiff, in reply, admitted challenging the sale deed for Rs. 8,03,000/- but claimed the Court had jurisdiction, Court fee was sufficient, and no defect of parties existed. The trial Court, vide order dated 14.03.2024, rejected the defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Aggrieved by which, the defendant No.1 has filed the present revision. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh / Second Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Sarangarh, Civil District Raigarh, Revenue District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/17/2019 suffers from manifest perversity and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned trial Court has pecuniary jurisdiction only up to Rs. 5,00,000/-, whereas in the present case, the registered sale deed dated 26.09.2017, which is under challenge, was executed for a consideration amount of Rs. 8,03,000/- and requisite registry and stamp fees were paid on that valuation. Thus, the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further urged that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit is also hit by mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, and no cause of action has arisen for the plaintiff to seek declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction, or to pray for declaration that the registered sale deed is null and void. The Court below erred in holding that Court fee of Rs. 700/- was sufficient, without assessing the valuation of the suit in light of the sale consideration of Rs. 8,03,000/-. It is submitted that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by defendants No. 1 to 5 was duly maintainable, as it squarely raised the question of the Court’s jurisdiction and the maintainability of the suit. However, the learned trial Court, without properly considering these substantial objections, has wrongly rejected the said application. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that defendants No.1 to 5 have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 5 11 CPC challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court as well as the valuation of the suit property. He submits that if the suit property is properly valued, it would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore, the Court in which the trial is being conducted would not be competent to decide the case for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. He further submits that while considering the said application, the trial Court failed to take these aspects into account and dismissed it in an illegal manner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1 opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC after due consideration of the pleadings and material on record. He contends that the suit has been properly valued, requisite Court fee has been paid, and the trial Court has the jurisdiction to try the matter. It is further submitted that the grounds raised by the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137, has held that the question of jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue if it goes to the root of the matter. 6 9. In addition, in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society presented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it must return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the proper Court. 10. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that it is a well-settled principle of law that, while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine its consideration to the averments contained in the plaint. Any defence taken by the defendants or factual disputes raised in their written statement are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial and not at the threshold stage, unless the plaint itself discloses a clear bar to the suit. 11. In the present case, the objection regarding valuation of the suit property and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court involves disputed questions of fact, which require evidence to be led by the parties. These issues cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of pleadings. The proper course, therefore, would have been for the trial Court to frame preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC with respect to (i) the correct valuation of the suit property, and (ii) the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, and thereafter to decide those issues after recording evidence. If, upon 7 such determination, it is found that the valuation exceeds the pecuniary limits of the Court, the plaint must be returned for presentation before the competent Court in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. 12. Similarly, the objection regarding mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties can only be decided during the course of trial after the framing of issues and consideration of evidence, and not at the stage of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in its present form. Consequently, the civil revision stands disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court concerned to frame and decide preliminary issues regarding the valuation of the suit and its pecuniary jurisdiction, after affording adequate opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. Appropriate orders shall then be passed in accordance with law, including the return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, if it is found to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh