1 2025:CGHC:59541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 319 of 2025 1 - Vishwajeet Chatraj S/o Manmohan Chatraj Aged About 50 Years R/o Plot No. 06 Avnati Udyan Marg, Maitri Kunj, Risali, Bhilai, Civic Centre Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Purshottam Bhite S/o Manohar Bhite Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 07, Shristi Vihar Mohba Bazar Road, Hirapur Post Tatibandh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08.12.2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed being aggrieved by the award dated 24.10.2025 passed by the learned Second VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 District Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Case No. A/36/2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 30.07.2024 seeking specific performance, permanent injunction, and declaration in respect of Plot No. 6, Khasra No. 48/20, admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. at Risali, Durg, on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 25.06.2022 for ₹70,00,000/-, alleging that defendant No.1 had received ₹65,75,000/- through RTGS/IMPS but failed to obtain the bank’s NOC for the mortgaged property and avoided execution of the sale deed despite repeated requests. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied execution of any agreement, claimed the document was fabricated, and asserted that the money transfers were only business-related transactions. Defendant No.1 thereafter filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been initiated by Abhansh Finance Services, possession of the property had been taken, and the matter was pending before the DRT, thereby barring the civil court’s jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The plaintiff opposed the application stating that an earlier application on the same grounds had already been dismissed on 07.05.2025, attracting res judicata, and that SARFAESI proceedings do not bar civil suits for specific performance or refund of consideration. The trial court, by order dated 24.10.2025, rejected the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding it to be not 3 maintainable as the earlier application on identical grounds had already been decided on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present suit is not maintainable because proceedings regarding the same property are already pending before the DRT, Jabalpur. It is argued that once the secured asset is under consideration before the DRT, the civil court’s jurisdiction is barred under Section 34 of the RDB Act. The reliefs of specific performance and permanent injunction sought in this suit directly affect the rights of the secured creditor and would interfere with the DRT proceedings. Therefore, the suit ought to have been rejected for want of jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. The issue raised by the defendant regarding the question of jurisdiction is required to be adjudicated after framing the issues. While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be examined, and if from those averments the suit does not appear to be barred on the ground of jurisdiction, the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage. 6. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the grounds raised regarding the proceedings stated to be pending before the DRT, the learned Trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and decide the same after recording evidence as may be necessary. 4 If, upon such adjudication, it is found that the suit is barred for want of jurisdiction, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid direction/observation, revision petition is disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha