1 2025:CGHC:61001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 333 of 2025 1 - Chhaganlal S/o Late Ramnarayan Sonkar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Titurghat, Tehsil Dhamda, P.S. Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Bhagwan Shankar (Shiv Mandir) Village Titurghat Represented Through A. Shatrughan Lal Sonkar, Aged About 67 Years, S/o Late Sukhiram Sonkar, B. Drupat Kumar, Aged About 55 Years, S/o Kawal Ram Sonkar, Both A And B Are R/o Village Titurghat, P.H. No. 8, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Keshav S/o Late Ramnarayan Sonkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Titurghat, P.H. No. 8, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Limesh S/o Late Ashwani Sonkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Titurghat, P.H. No. 8, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 5 - Tehsildar Mahoday Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Aam Janta Nill ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :- Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For State :- Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.12.2025 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2025 (copy annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the Principal District Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2025 titled Bhagwan Shankar (Shiv) vs. Chhagan & Others, whereby the application filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected, the Applicant is filing the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the following facts and grounds. 2. Following prayer has been made by way of this revision petition:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the trial court and may kindly exercise its revisional jurisdiction in favour of the applicants herein in the peculiar factual matrix of the case, allow this revision, set aside the order dated 3 17.11.2025 passed by the Trial Court in civil suit no. 7-A/2025 and in effect allow the application filed by the Applicants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 7-A/2025 before the learned Principal District Judge, Durg seeking declaration, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs in respect of land admeasuring about 7.95 acres situated at Village Titurghat, P.H. No. 8, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.), claiming the same to be dedicated since ancient times to Bhagwan Shankar (Shiv) Mandir and alleging that the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely late Ramnarayan, was earlier functioning as Sarvkar. It was pleaded that after his death, defendant Nos.1 to 3 initiated revenue proceedings to record their names, against which objections were filed by the plaintiffs. The plaint itself discloses that the alleged public trust is unregistered and one of the reliefs sought is a direction for constitution and registration of the trust and appointment of the plaintiffs as Sarvkar, along with restraint on alienation, stay of revenue proceedings and appointment of a receiver. The Applicant/Defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC contending that the suit is barred under Section 32 of the M.P./Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951 and is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which 4 application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.11.2025, giving rise to the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is perverse, illegal and unsustainable in law, as the Court failed to appreciate that the suit itself is barred at the threshold by statutory provisions. A bare reading of the plaint clearly shows that the suit has been filed for enforcement of rights of an unregistered public trust, which is expressly barred under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951, and the plaint itself admits that the alleged trust is not registered and even seeks directions for its registration. Further, the suit is purportedly filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, though the plaint categorically discloses that the respondents are not trustees and therefore lack locus to seek declaration or to deny the title of the applicant, which right vests only in a trustee. It is settled law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered, and since the plaint itself discloses a clear bar of law, the learned trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and committed material irregularity by rejecting the application, causing serious prejudice to the applicant and warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 5 5. Learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law after due consideration of the plaint averments. It is contended that no statutory bar is apparent on the face of the plaint so as to attract Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, and the issues raised require adjudication on evidence. 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. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the applicants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC pertain to the maintainability of the suit and involve mixed questions of law and fact. At the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine its scrutiny strictly to the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein, without embarking upon an enquiry into disputed questions or the defence set up by the defendants. From a plain reading of the plaint, no absolute or patent bar of law is discernible so as to warrant rejection of the plaint at the threshold. The grounds urged by the applicants require proper adjudication after framing of issues and consideration of evidence. 6 8. In view of the above, the Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in declining to reject the plaint. However, to ensure effective and proper adjudication of the controversy, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Trial Court to frame specific and appropriate issues touching upon the objections raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to frame relevant issues and adjudicate the matter expeditiously. 9. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha