1 2025:CGHC:7714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 32 of 2025 1 - Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sundar Lal Gupta Aged About 64 Years R/o Behind Gandhi Temple, Mathpara, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Amrit Lal S/o Girdhari Lal Chakradhari Aged About 42 Years R/o Pisegaon, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) 2 - Sushil Kumar Chandak S/o Govind Lal Chandak Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 1266, Ghasidas Nagar, Nandini Road, Jamul, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mukesh Kumar Chakradhari S/o Somnath Chakradhari Aged About 36 Years R/o Pisegaon, Ward No. 02, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. This revision has been filed by the applicant assailing the order dated 16.01.2025 whereby the application preferred by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2025.02.13 16:01:35 +0530 2 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction though the same is barred by limitation and the same was based on the consent letter which has been executed between the applicant and respondent on 12th September, 2005. He further submits that the suit has not been filed within three years. Therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable and the same may be set aside. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the revision. 4. Admittedly, the applicant/defendant has raised the objection that the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has also raised the ground of adverse possession. So the issue concerning to limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which has rightly observed by the trial Court, therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the order impugned. 5. Resultantly, this Civil Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. Apart from the above, it is observed that though a civil suit has been filed, but in the cause-title, it is been mentioned as ‘An application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC’ and accordingly pleadings have also been made, therefore, the trial Court may issue suitable directions to the plaintiff for carrying out suitable amendment to correct the pleadings. 7. Let the copy be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Saxena