1 2025:CGHC:20213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 119 of 2025 1. Asgar Khan S/o Late Akram Khan Aged About 38 Years Caste- Musalman R/o. Dayalband, Nariyal Kothi, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Akbar Khan S/o Late Akram Khan Aged About 35 Years Caste- Musalman R/o. Dayalband, Nariyal Kothi, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). ... Applicants versus 1. Sukhdev Sahu S/o Late Nanki Teli, Aged About 65 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Sipat ( Nawadih ) Main Road, Police Station And Tehsil - Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Rajendra Kumar Dhivar S/o Mohitram Aged About 40 Years Caste Dheemar, R/o Sipat, ( Beech Basti ), Tahsil Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). (Present Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sipat) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector, District- Bilaspur (C.G ). ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate, with Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.05.06 10:52:57 +0530 2 02 .0 5 .2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred challenging the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the First Civil Judge Senior Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 232-A/2023, whereby, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the applicants has been rejected. 3. The said application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed by the applicants stating that no cause of action has arisen to file the suit nor has the plaintiff (respondent No.1) sent legal notice to the Government following the legal provisions under Section 80 of CPC. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prays for setting aside of the said order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and vacant possession. It is settled position of law that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the Court should consider only the facts of the plaint and not the written statement. From the plaint itself it is clear that on 16.02.2023, an attempt was made by the applicants to evict the plaintiff, against which a complaint was made by him at PS Seepat. On 18.06.2023, they again vandalized the suit land along with 6 other persons. Hence, prima facie it is reflected from the plaint that the plaintiff has a cause of action to file the suit. 3 7. As regards notice under Section 80 CPC, the trial Court found that the main contesting parties in the case are the present applicants. The Government has been made a formal party. Therefore, notice under Section 80 CPC is not required. Hence, the Trial Court, finding prima facie cause of action in the plaint, dismissed the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order by the trial Court warranting any interference therein. 9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant Revision is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai