1 2025:CGHC:49626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 260 of 2025 1 - Anuj Prasad Navrang S/o Prem Alias Parem Navrang Aged About 52 Years Caste Satanami, R.O Village Sirsaha, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Near Boys Higher Secondary School Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Navrang S/o Prem Alias Parem Navrang Aged About 40 Years Caste Satanami, R/o Village Sirsaha, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prem Alias Parem Navrang S/o Prabhu Aged About 62 Years Caste Satanami, R/o Village Sirsaha, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Santosh Kumar Navrang S/o Prem Alias Parem Navrang Aged About 40 Years Caste Satanami, R/o Village Sirsaha, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Santoshi D/o Prem Alias Parem Navrang Aged About 30 Years Caste Satanami, R/o Village Sirsaha, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. The applicant / defendant has preferred the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Junior Division, Kota, Distt. - Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2022, whereby the application filed by the defendants No. 1 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed in a suit filed for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the applicant herein is the original defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2022, which is presently pending before the learned Second Civil Judge Junior Division, Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). The suit was instituted by respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of certain disputed land. The dispute fundamentally arises out of a disagreement between the parties regarding the partition of ancestral properties. The plaintiff/respondent filed the civil suit claiming ownership rights and seeking protection from any interference by the defendants in relation to the suit property. The case of plaintiff is premised on the contention that the suit land, whose possession and title are under contest, has not been properly partitioned among the parties, leading to the present litigation. In the background of the dispute, defendant No. 1 had filed an application before the competent revenue authority seeking partition and separate possession of certain ancestral properties. These properties are located in Village Sirsaha, P.C. No. 27, R.I. Circle, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), comprising eight khasara numbers totaling approximately 0.9350 hectares of agricultural land along with a residential house. Additionally, partition was sought for agricultural land in Village Manpahari, P.C. No. 27, R.I. Circle, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), consisting of three khasara numbers measuring about 1.2300 hectares. It is crucial to note that in this application for partition, the defendant No. 1 deliberately did not include certain other lands that were purchased by defendant No. 1 in the name of defendant No. 2, specifically situated in Village Belsari, P.C. No. 28, R.I. Circle, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), bearing Khasara No. 406/5 and 3 admeasuring approximately 0.0570 hectares. Further, land purchased by defendant No. 1 in the name of defendant No. 3, located in Village Kusmuli, Khasara No. 181/1 (about 0.2630 hectares), and Village Manpahari, Khasara No. 1151/1 (about 0.2190 hectares), was also excluded from the partition application. Following service of summons on defendants No. 1 to 3, and defendant No. 4, the defendants filed their written statements denying all claims made by the plaintiff. In their written statements, it was expressly stated that the land in Village Belsari (Khasara No. 406/5) belonging to defendant No. 2 and the lands in Village Kusmuli (Khasara No. 181/1) and Village Manpahari (Khasara No. 1151/1) belonging to defendant No. 3 were purchased out of their own independent income and are thus self-acquired properties, distinct and separate from the ancestral property under dispute. This assertion forms a key aspect of the defendants’ defense against the suit. On 05.12.2024, defendants No. 1 to 4 jointly filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The defendants contended that since the plaint itself acknowledges that one of the properties in dispute, namely the land situated in Village Belsari, P.C. No. 28, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Khasara No. 406/5, admeasuring 0.0570 hectares, is located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court, the suit in so far as it pertains to this property is not maintainable before the present Court. The jurisdiction in respect of this particular land lies with the Civil Judge, Class 2, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Therefore, it was prayed that the plaint be dismissed as it lacks territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff, upon receiving a copy of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 4 CPC, filed a detailed reply, denying the grounds raised by the defendants in their application. The plaintiff challenged the assertion regarding lack of jurisdiction and contended that the suit was maintainable and that the objection raised was without merit. After hearing the parties on the application, the trial Court passed an order dated 28.06.2025, whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was erroneously dismissed. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaint itself, in paragraph 6, specifically mentions that part of the suit land is situated at Village Belsari, which lies beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, the trial Court did not adequately consider the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendants with respect to this property. The impugned order dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is, therefore, assailed before this Court by way of the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is palpably erroneous both in law and on facts and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal principles governing the scope and applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates rejection of the plaint at the threshold if it is found that the suit is barred by law or if the Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has overlooked the vital aspect that the suit involves properties which are not ancestral but are admittedly self-acquired by the petitioner. In particular, the plaint itself admits that one of the suit properties, situated in Village Belsari, P.C. No. 28, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), lies beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court where the suit has been filed, 5 i.e., Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kota. This defect in territorial jurisdiction is fundamental and goes to the maintainability of the suit itself. As such, the civil suit insofar as it concerns the property outside the jurisdiction of the Court is not maintainable and ought to have been rejected outright. Furthermore, the learned trial Court has erred in law by not rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC despite the plaint itself clearly disclosing this jurisdictional defect. The law is well settled that the Court must reject a plaint if it is manifestly barred by law or if the suit property does not fall within its territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court, however, failed to exercise its jurisdictional powers properly and allowed the suit to proceed, thereby committing a grave error. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the learned trial Court did not duly consider or appreciate the pleadings contained in the plaint in their true perspective. Instead, it passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind on the question of jurisdiction. The failure to reject the plaint at this stage has caused unwarranted hardship to the applicant and has allowed the suit to proceed in a forum that is clearly incompetent to adjudicate the dispute concerning the said property. It is further submitted that the defects in the plaint relating to jurisdiction are incurable and the learned trial Court should not have granted any opportunity for amendment at this stage. Allowing the suit to proceed despite the fundamental jurisdictional defect would amount to a miscarriage of justice and a clear departure from established procedural norms. In light of the above, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2025 and reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the interest of justice. 6 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for applicant and would submits that the order of learned trial Court dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was justified considering the overall context of the suit. It is contended that the trial Court rightly considered aspects beyond mere territorial jurisdiction regarding one property (Village Belsari), emphasizing the nature of suit involves partition and declaration of rights over multiple properties, some within the jurisdiction of Court (like lands in Village Sirsaha and Manpahari, Tahsil Kota). The suit of plaintiff seeks declaration of title and injunction over disputed lands, with pleadings indicating composite claims over properties located in different areas, suggesting the trial Court has jurisdiction over substantial parts of the suit lands (those in Tahsil Kota). The issue of the property in Village Belsari (Tahsil Takhatpur) being outside the territorial jurisdiction of Court doesn't necessarily mandate rejection of the entire plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; Courts often deal with splitting causes of action or transferring parts of suits for convenience. The interpretation of applicant of the plaint overly emphasizes one aspect (territorial jurisdiction for Village Belsari property) without considering the integrated nature of the dispute involving ancestral properties and claims of self-acquisition. The trial Court exercised discretion in dismissing the application, considering the stage of proceedings and nature of disputes; such discretion should not be lightly interfered with in revision. The impugned order does not suffer from such grave jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision under Section 115 CPC. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully 7 considered the records of the case, the impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and the relevant legal provisions governing the matter. 6. The central issue that arises for determination in this civil revision is whether the learned trial Court committed any legal error or jurisdictional irregularity in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that a part of the suit property lies beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 7. It is essential to examine the legal framework under which such a suit may be entertained by a Court. In order to appreciate argument advanced by the defendant as well as the order passed by the concerned trial Court, provisions of Section 17 of the CPC is required to be considered. Section 17 of the CPC reads as under : “17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.— Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate : Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.” 8. Section 17 of the CPC clearly provides that where a suit is instituted to obtain relief with respect to immovable properties situated in the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is located, provided the entire claim is made in good faith. This provision is aimed at 8 avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and to allow composite adjudication of disputes where properties involved span across multiple jurisdictions. 9. A perusal of the plaint in the present matter reveals that the plaintiff has clearly pleaded the existence of a family partition dispute and sought adjudication regarding several parcels of land, a majority of which are situated within Tahsil Kota. The fact that one of the suit properties, namely Khasra No. 406/5 in Village Belsari, lies in Tahsil Takhatpur, does not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the trial Court at Kota. The trial Court has correctly held that in light of Section 17 CPC, the plaintiff is entitled to institute the suit before the Court having jurisdiction over any part of the immovable property forming the subject matter of the suit. This position is supported by a catena of judicial pronouncements which affirm that where immovable properties forming the subject of one composite suit are situated in different jurisdictions, it is sufficient for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction if any portion of the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is filed. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivnarayan (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Maniklal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 629 has held as under : “33. Sections 16 and 17 CPC are part of the one statutory scheme. Section 16 contains general principle that suits are to be instituted where subject-matter is situate whereas Section 17 engrafts an exception to the general rule as occurring in Section 16. 34. From the foregoing discussions, we arrive at the following conclusions with regard to ambit and scope of Section 17 CPC: 9 34.1. The word “property” occurring in Section 17 although has been used in “singular” but by virtue of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act it may also be read as “plural” i.e. “properties”. 34.2. The expression “any portion of the property” can be read as portion of one or more properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts and can be also read as portion of several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts. 34.3. A suit in respect of immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated. 34.4. A suit in respect of more than one property situated in jurisdiction of different courts can be instituted in a court within local limits of jurisdiction where one or more properties are situated provided suit is based on same cause of action with respect to the properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts.” 11. From the aforesaid, it is ample clear that Sections 16 and 17 of the CPC must be read together, with Section 16 laying down the general rule that suits should be filed where the property is located, and Section 17 providing an exception. The term “property” in Section 17 can be plural, allowing a suit involving immovable properties situated in different jurisdictions to be filed in any court where any portion of the property lies. Furthermore, if multiple properties in different jurisdictions are involved in the same cause of action, the suit can be instituted in a court where one or more of those properties are situated. 12. Moreover, the question whether the properties standing in the name of defendants No. 2 and 3 are self-acquired or part of the ancestral 10 property is a disputed question of fact that requires evidence to be led and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is limited to examining the averments made in the plaint alone. If the plaint discloses a cause of action and jurisdiction under any provision of law, including Section 17 CPC in this case, then the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. 13. It is not the function of the Court at this stage to weigh the correctness or truthfulness of the allegations of plaintiff or to enter into disputed factual determinations regarding the nature of the properties in question. This Court also finds no merit in the contention of the applicant that the inclusion of the land situated in Village Belsari, outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court, is fatal to the maintainability of the suit. Section 17 of the CPC has been enacted precisely to address such situations, and it enables the plaintiff to file a single suit in respect of multiple properties situated in different jurisdictions, thereby ensuring judicial economy and consistency of verdicts. 14. In the present case, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the suit to proceed, given that a substantial part of the cause of action and the subject matter of the suit pertains to properties situated within its jurisdiction. The trial Court has, therefore, committed no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kota is reasoned and based on a correct appreciation of the law. The contention raised by the applicant that the plaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction is unsustainable in view of Section 17 CPC, and no case is made out for interference by this Court in the 11 exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is gross failure of justice or a jurisdictional error. No such circumstances exist in the present case. In light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 15. This revision petition filed by the applicant is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna