1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 261 of 2025 1 - Mohammad Saleem Ishaque S/o Late Jaan Mohammad Ishaque Aged About 60 Years R/o In Front Of Bihari Talkies, Old High Court Road, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Dipankar Gop S/o Late Kaashinath Gop Aged About 45 Years Director/proprietor Kaashi Photocopy, In Front Of Bihari Talkies, Old High Court Road, Bilaspur, C.G., R/o Torwa Naka, Bilaspur, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anant Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly call for records of the entire proceedings of the Civil Suit No. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 130A/2024 namely Dipankar Gop v/s Mohammad Saleem Ishaque & Another pending before the Learned Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for examining the present revision petition in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly set-aside the impugned Order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Learned Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 130A/2024 namely Dipankar Gop vis Mohammad Saleem Ishaque & Another in the interest of justice & equity. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by the Applicant herein and reject the plaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) in the Civil Suit No. 130A /2024 pending before Learned Court of 7th Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) namely Dipankar Gop v/s Mohammad Saleem Ishaque & Another. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, according to facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the applicant (defendant No. 1) has preferred the present civil revision application challenging the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned 7th Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the 3 learned trial Court was pleased to reject the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint instituted by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) for declaration of title over government land on the basis of adverse possession. The certified copy of the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned 7th Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Learned Lower Court”) in Civil Suit No. 130A/2024, titled Dipankar Gop v. Mohammad Saleem Ishaque & Another. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue framed by the trial Court in respect of limitation is not appropriate and does not correctly address the legal question involved. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have framed a proper and specific issue pertaining to limitation, as the suit is barred by law. He contends that the plea of limitation, particularly with reference to the claim of adverse possession, requires due consideration and ought to have been properly framed as a distinct issue. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the said defect and the suit being barred by law, the applicant has already filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking dismissal of the suit at the threshold. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the issue in question has already been appropriately framed by the learned trial Court, and the applicant has been afforded 4 every opportunity under law to take recourse to the proper remedy if he is genuinely aggrieved by the framing of such issue. He further contends that, in case the applicant seeks modification or addition of any further issues, the appropriate course available to him is to file a suitable application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the learned trial Court for necessary consideration in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The issue sought to be raised by the applicant cannot be adjudicated upon in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the scope of consideration under the said provision is confined solely to the averments made in the plaint. It is a settled principle of law that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine only the statements contained in the plaint to ascertain whether it discloses a cause of action or is barred by any law, and the grounds or contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement or in any other application cannot be taken into account at that stage. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and taking into account the grievance raised by the applicant, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the applicant to file a suitable and properly constituted application before the learned trial Court seeking addition, modification, or correction of the issues already 5 framed. Upon such application being filed, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and shall endeavour to dispose of the said application expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of its filing. 8. The applicant is hereby directed to file the requisite application within a period of two weeks from today, and he shall be at liberty to file such appropriate application as may be advised in accordance with law for seeking the reliefs to which he claims entitlement. 9. With this observation and direction, the revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat