1 2025:CGHC:59290 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 301 of 2025 1 - M/s Jhanki Developers, Through Partner Shankarlal Tandon, Aged 56 Years, S/o Lt. Darshanlal Tandon, R/o Tandon Dairy Farm, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 2 - Suresh Jagwani S/o Lt. Chanchaldas Jagwani Aged About 57 Years R/o Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Kaushlendra @ Kaushal Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Jivan Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 194, Metrogreen, Opposite Bhavns School, Saddu, Raipur, C.G., Current Address- Kaushal Sharma And Company Chartered Accountants, Jainam Mansion, First Floor, Banstaal, Raipur, C.G. 2 - Smt. Neelam Sharma D/o Lt. Avinash Sharma Aged About 45 Years R/o 25, State Bank Colony, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, C.G., Current Address-Kaushlendra @ Kaushal Kumar Sharma, R/o House No. 194, Metrogreen Opposite Bhavns School, Saddu, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/12/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned passed by the learned 4th Additional of 1" Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur in Civil Case No. 107A/25 titled "Kaushlendra @ Kaushal Sharma vs Neelam Sharma & Anr.", and further reject the said suit in light of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to secure the ends of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the parties are referred to by their original status in the civil suit, respondent No. 1 is the wife of the plaintiff, who instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and injunction against her on the ground that, for good governance within the family and to obtain remission of stamp duty on the sale deed, he had purchased the suit property in her name, despite her being a homemaker since the inception of their marriage and having no independent source of income. It was further averred that after ten years of marriage domestic disputes arose, leading the plaintiff to live separately from defendant No. 1, and that the suit property, purchased from his income, was being attempted to be sold by her, prompting him to file an earlier civil suit bearing No. 395A/24 and to publish a public notice in a daily newspaper, which the defendant-wife contested. The plaintiff also asserted that defendant No. 1 had sold the suit property to defendants No. 2 and 3, i.e., the present revisionists, and claimed that such sale, having occurred during the pendency of litigation, was void under 3 Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Through the suit, the plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and annulment of the sale in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, although it was evident that while challenging the sale deed valued at Rs. 53,51,000/-, he failed to value the suit at the actual value of the sale deed as mandated under Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act; moreover, the documents filed by him revealed that he was not in possession of the suit property, yet he neither sought recovery of possession nor affixed the requisite court fee. Consequently, the revisionists moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on grounds including improper valuation and insufficient court fee, to which the plaintiff filed his reply; however, after hearing both sides, the Trial Court, without properly appreciating Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rejected the application by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submits that the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been erroneously dismissed by the learned trial Court. He contends that the suit is liable to be rejected on two substantial grounds: firstly, the suit has not been properly valued and the requisite court fees have not been duly paid, thereby rendering the plaint defective; and secondly, the plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the suit property, and therefore, a bare suit for declaration without claiming the consequential relief of possession is expressly barred under Section 34 of the Specific 4 Relief Act. 4. The trial Court, upon considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, has categorically held that the suit has been properly valued and, therefore, there exists no necessity for any revaluation of the suit or for directing the plaintiff to deposit additional court fees. The Court further observed that the grounds urged by the defendants in support of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are untenable in law, as the adjudication of such an application must be confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint itself, and cannot be influenced by any defence taken in the written statement or by assertions made independently in an application under Order 7 Rule 11. 5. Accordingly, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application, however, the issues raised by the defendants shall remain open to be urged by them during the course of the trial. The material aspects highlighted by the plaintiff in the present application are also matters that can appropriately be examined and determined at the trial stage after the parties have led their respective evidence, and therefore, no interference is warranted at this preliminary stage. 6. Accordingly, the revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat