1 2025:CGHC:59823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 320 of 2025 Rajesh Mal S/o Late Jethamal Jain, Aged About 40 Years R/o Main Road Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Jain S/o Late Anand Mal Jain, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Shivnandanpur, Police Station and Post- Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For State/Non-applicants No.2 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.12.2025 1 By way of this civil revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case from the trial YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.17 17:33:47 +0530 2 Court and further be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge Surajpur District - Surajpur passed in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2023 and further be pleased to allow the application made by the Applicant /defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in the interest of justice.” 2 The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1/plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 04-A/2023 seeking a declaration of title and delivery of open possession of the suit land, along with a direction to demolish the pakka house allegedly constructed by the applicant/defendant over a portion of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 444/3 situated at Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur. 3 During the pendency of the civil suit, the defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same was not maintainable owing to improper valuation. It was contended therein that the suit land is highly valuable and that the portion allegedly encroached and built upon by the defendant is valued at around ₹1 Crore, the plaintiff arbitrarily valued the suit in crores but affixed a Court fee of only ₹500/- for the relief of declaration. In para 13 of the plaint also, the plaintiff mentioned valuation of ₹2 Crores but still affixed an 3 insufficient Court fee, thereby rendering the suit violative of the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. 4 It is contended by the defendant that since the plaintiff also seeks the relief of possession in addition to declaration of title, the valuation ought to have been made on the basis of the market value of the property, and thus the suit is not maintainable for improper valuation and insufficient Court fee. 5 The plaintiff filed a reply denying these contentions, asserting that the construction raised by the defendant is an encroachment and is of no value to the defendant, and therefore the suit has been properly valued in accordance with the Court Fees Act, 1870. 6 After hearing both parties and examining the material on record, the learned Court below rejected the defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the impugned order dated 10.11.2025, giving rise to the present revision. 7 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned 3rd District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur is bad in law, illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing rejection of plaint. It is contended that the defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit, as instituted by the plaintiff suffers from improper valuation and 4 insufficient Court fees, but the court below has erroneously rejected the said application. It is urged that although the plaintiff himself has valued the suit property at approximately ₹2 Crores, he has affixed only ₹500/- as Court fee for the relief of declaration and has simultaneously sought registration of the suit, which is in clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Therefore, the suit, as framed and valued, does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and is thus not maintainable. 8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the plaintiff has sought not only a declaration of title but also consequential reliefs, including delivery of possession and demolition of the constructed house standing on the suit land. For such reliefs, the valuation of the suit must necessarily be made on the basis of the market value of the property. Hence, the suit is grossly undervalued and the Court fees affixed is wholly insufficient. It is argued that once consequential relief of demolition and possession is claimed, the plaintiff is bound to pay ad valorem Court fees on the market value of the property, failing which the plaint is liable to be rejected. The learned court below, however, has failed to appreciate these legal requirements and has wrongly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 5 9 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and contends that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper. It is submitted that the question of valuation and sufficiency of Court fees is primarily between the plaintiff and the State, and unless the valuation is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or mala fide, the plaint cannot be rejected at the instance of the defendant. It is further urged that the plaintiff has valued the suit in accordance with the reliefs claimed, and the trial Court, upon considering the pleadings, has rightly held that the suit is maintainable. Hence, no ground is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. 10 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents along with this civil revision. 11 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors, (2021) 9 SC 99, this Court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the court held: “25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows: 6 25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to. 25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application. 25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the "previous suit" is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit. 25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the "previous suit", such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused." (emphasis supplied) Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant No. 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser or not need to be examined in detail. This Court has held that such circumstances require an in-depth examination of the previous decree, and its 7 impact on the second suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint. As held by this Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551, identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023, this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows: 5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. 6. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the Appellate Courts. Therefore, we make it clear that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on merits.” 8 10. From the order passed by the Trial Court it is apparent that there is neither consideration nor analysis of the case set up by the appellant in plaint. Further, the Trial Court questioned the legality of plaintiff’s action on the ground that, “he did not raise any objection regarding the decree passed in O.S. No. 298/96. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the plea of fraud raised by the 1 st respondent is not acceptable one.” With this view of the matter, the Trial Court rejected the objection of the appellant to the applicability of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC by holding; “12. The respondents counsel submitted that such a type of question cannot be decided as preliminary issue. In support of his contention. They have filed our Hon'ble court judgment 2009(4) LW 432, and 2007 A.L.W 580, 2000(3) MLJ 342,2002(1)LW 398. But those are dealing with regarding court fees. But as far as the case on hand is concerned. It is not regarding court fees. Therefore the above said citations is not apply to this suit. For the above said reasons and explanations. The petition is allowed. No cost.” 11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. The appellant’s revision under Article 227 was similarly dismissed by the High Court holding that the decision of the Trial Court does not warrant interference. 9 12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96 dated 29.07.1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not have been decided under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief. 13. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court in CRP (PD) No. 1454 of 2014 dated 20.03.2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Portonovo to its original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. 14. While concluding, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the grounds raised by the defendants, including those relating to res judicata are kept open for final determination.” 12 It is a settled principle of law that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered. Furthermore, it is well settled 10 that for considering the question of res judicata, the pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence led by the parties are required to be examined, which has not been done in the present case. 13 In view of the principles reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra), this Court is required to examine whether the trial Court, while deciding the applicant’s plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has confined its scrutiny to the averments made in the plaint. The law is now well settled that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court cannot enter into disputed questions relating to valuation, adequacy of Court fees, or the correctness of the factual assertions made by either party. The defence of the defendant, howsoever strong it may appear, cannot be relied upon for rejection of the plaint. In the present case, the applicant/defendant has sought rejection of the plaint primarily on the grounds that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit, has affixed insufficient Court fee despite mentioning a valuation of ₹2 Crores in the plaint, and has also claimed consequential reliefs of possession and demolition. These issues, by their very nature, require a detailed examination of the pleadings, evidence, market value of the property, and the nature of construction alleged to have been raised by the defendant. Such disputed factual issues cannot be concluded at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC merely on the basis of assertions made by the defendant. 11 14 The trial Court, on a careful reading of the plaint, has rightly held that the maintainability of the suit cannot be tested on the basis of the valuation dispute raised by the defendant. Whether the valuation adopted by the plaintiff is proper and whether the Court fees paid is adequate are issues that fall for determination during the course of trial and upon framing of specific issues. These questions cannot be adjudicated without permitting the parties to adduce evidence regarding the market value of the suit property, the nature and extent of construction, and the actual relief sought. The reasoning adopted by the trial Court is in consonance with the settled legal position that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be treated as a substitute for a full-fledged trial on disputed factual elements. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the approach of the trial Court in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC. 15 Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the applicant/defendant is not prejudiced, it is clarified that all contentions raised by him with respect to improper valuation of the suit, insufficiency of Court fees, maintainability of the relief of possession and demolition, and the alleged inconsistency in the plaintiff’s valuation mentioned in the plaint, shall remain open to be urged in the written statement. The trial Court shall frame appropriate issues touching 12 upon these questions and decide them in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. 16 With the aforesaid observations and clarifications, the civil revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh