1 2025:CGHC:7936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C R No. 35 of 2025 1 - Urmila Bai W/o Bhajeram Sahu, Aged About 76 Years R/o 51 Mangdapara, Near Smile Phataka, Mangdapara Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Yashoda W/o Late Baladram Sahu, R/o Shahid Nagar Khamtarai Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Durga Bai W/o Santosh Sahu, R/o Kavilas Nagar Bhanpuri Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 Ramauti Bai W/o Late Girdhari Sahu 4 - Chetanlal Sahu S/o Late Girdhari Sahu, (Nos. 3 & 4 are the Legal Heirs Of Deceased Girdhari Sahu) 5 - Balmukund Sahu S/o Jhugu Sahu No. 3 to 5 are R/o Mangdapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 6 - Gauribai W/o Late Balkishan Sahu (No. 6 is The Legal Heir Of Deceased Balkishan Sahu) ----- R/o House No. 51, Mangdapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 7 - Khileshwar Sahu S/o Late Balkishan Sahu (No. 7 is the Legal Heir Of Deceased Balkishan Sahu) ----- R/o House No. 51, Mangdapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.02.17 14:46:17 +0530 2 (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. J u stice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 14/02/2025 1. This Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.61A/2020 by the Fourth Civil Judge, Junior Grade, Raipur (CG), whereby, an application preferred by the defendant/applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC, was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that initially, the applicant/defendant filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the First Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.21-A/95, which was dismissed on 30.8.1999, against which, the applicant preferred First Appeal No.2A/2007, which was also dismissed vide the judgment dated 12.3.2008 by the Third Additional District Judge, Raipur, against which, the applicant preferred Second Appeal No.183/2008 and ultimately, the same was also dismissed by the order dated 5.11.2019. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the present Civil Suit for possession, in which, the applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC by making the averment that the Civil Suit is apparently time barred. However, the 3 said objection has been disallowed and consequently, the application has also been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has filed a Civil Suit in the year 1995 and at that time, the subject dispute/fact already came into the notice of the respondents/plaintiffs and since then, the defendant has been in continuous possession of the suit property. He submits that the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred and further, no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs to file a Civil Suit in the year 2019. Learned counsel for the applicant would place reliance on the matter of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another (judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.14807/2024) and submit that on bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff(s), when it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC ought to be allowed. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays to allow the revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the documents annexed with the Revision. 5. Admittedly, in the earlier round of litigation, the applicant/defendant claimed title to the subject property and lost the battle and ultimately, the Second Appeal was also dismissed on 5.11.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/legal heirs of the deceased-plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for getting possession from the applicant/defendant. 6. The case law {Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust (supra) } relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable on facts since the scope of enquiry at this stage has to be limited only to the pleadings of 4 the plaintiff(s). Furthermore, the trial Court has not given any final opinion with regard to limitation by observing that the same is mixed question of law and fact. 7. For the foregoing reasons as also considering the pleadings made herein-above, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action in their favour to file a Civil Suit in the year 2019. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find or infirmity or illegality in the order impugned, which does not require any interference. 9. Resultantly, the Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna