1 2025:CGHC:61000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 332 of 2025 1 - Surendra S/o Santram Aged About 33 Years Caste - Kalar Resident Of Occupation Cultivator R/o Village- Jhankadarha Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra S/o Santram Aged About 35 Years Caste - Kalar Resident Of Occupation Cultivator R/o Village- Jhankadarha Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Santram S/o Munudau Aged About 64 Years Caste - Kalar Resident Of Occupation Cultivator R/o Village- Jhankadarha Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - Shivcharan S/o Uderam Aged About 73 Years Caste - Raut Occupation Cultivator Resident Of Village- Jhankadarha Tahsil - Gharghoda District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jitendra S/o Santram Aged About 30 Years Caste- Kalar Occupation Cultivator Resident Of Village- Jhankadarha, Tahsil Gharghoda District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :- Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.12.2025 1. By way of the present Civil Revision, the applicants are challenging the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2019, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the applicants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure without considering the material available on record, and the said order is illegal, erroneous, perverse, contrary to law, and has been passed without proper appreciation of the facts and material on record, thus calling for interference by this Hon’ble Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. Following prayer has been made by way of this revision petition:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this civil revision and to quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Class Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh in 3 civil suit no. 43-A/2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are aggrieved by the institution of Civil Suit No. 43-A/2019 by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land, wherein the present applicants/defendants No. 2 to 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaintiff had not properly affixed the requisite court fees commensurate with the reliefs claimed in the plaint; the said application (copy filed as Annexure A-3) was contested by the plaintiff by filing reply, however, the learned trial Court, without due consideration of the material available on record and the contents of the plaint (copy filed as Annexure A-2), dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 16.10.2025, which is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, compelling the applicants to prefer the present civil revision before this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2019 is bad in law as well as on facts available on record, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court failed to adopt a liberal and judicious approach while deciding the application filed by the applicants. It is further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has 4 not properly affixed the requisite court fees in accordance with the reliefs sought in the plaint, and therefore the suit itself is liable to be rejected under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed after due application of mind and in accordance with law. The issue of court fee is a mixed question of law and fact, not liable to be decided at this stage. The order suffers from no illegality or perversity and warrants no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellants submits that while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Trial Court has committed an error of law, inasmuch as the suit is barred by jurisdiction in view of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, and further that the valuation of the suit as well as the court fees have not been properly paid and the mandatory notice under Section 18 CPC was also not issued, and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. However, the Trial Court has held that prima facie the suit cannot be dismissed on these grounds alone and that the objections raised require adjudication during the course of trial. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the application. 5 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled principles governing Order VII Rule 11 CPC, under which only the averments made in the plaint are required to be examined and the defence raised by the defendants in the written statement or oral submissions cannot be looked into at this stage, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any error of law. However, the concerned Trial Court is directed to frame appropriate issues and decide the same in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha