Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 920 (CHH)

Ratanlal, S/o Kisno v. State of Chhattisgarh

2025-07-21

Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025
JUDGMENT : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By way of this civil revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “The applicant, therefore, humbly prays that the Hon'ble court may kindly be please to call the entire record and further to set aside the order dated 28/4/25 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Class, Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa In Civil Suit No. 18 A/2020, and suit filed by the respondents may kindly be please to dismiss with cost in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell, are that, the applicant, Ratanlal, is the duly appointed Kotwar of Village Pota, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, and has been in lawful and continuous possession of 15.49 acres of Government service land (Seva Bhoomi) since 2001, comprising Khasra Nos. 128/1, 558, 598, 637, and 640, recorded in his name in Column 23 of the revenue records, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The land was transferred to him following the resignation of the former Kotwar, Bedram, in 2000. Subsequently, Bedram and his son Chandrika Singh challenged the applicant’s possession through multiple writ petitions, all of which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, affirming the applicant’s lawful possession. Despite liberty granted in 2012 to file a civil suit, no such suit was filed during Bedram's lifetime or thereafter by Chandrika Singh. In 2025, a distant relative, non-applicant No. 2, a descendant of Bedram’s brother, initiated mutation proceedings claiming ownership based on alleged ancestral possession. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the claim, citing previous court decisions and revenue entries. Non-applicant No. 2 then filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, challenging the SDO’s order. The applicant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of cause of action, limitation, res judicata, non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC, and abuse of process. However, the trial court rejected the application on April 28, 2025, without addressing key legal issues raised. The matter is now pending for further proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the learned trial court, is bad in law, suffers from material irregularity, and deserves to be set aside. However, the trial court rejected the application on April 28, 2025, without addressing key legal issues raised. The matter is now pending for further proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the learned trial court, is bad in law, suffers from material irregularity, and deserves to be set aside. The trial court erred in rejecting the applicant’s well- founded application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, without considering the substantial legal grounds raised therein. It is submitted that the plaint discloses no cause of action as required under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC. The suit land is Government service land (Seva Bhoomi) allotted to the petitioner in his official capacity as Kotwar, and the respondent has failed to produce any ownership document or legal right to the suit property. The vague and unsubstantiated claim of historical possession is irrelevant and insufficient to maintain a suit for declaration and injunction. It is further submitted that the suit is barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the following grounds: (i) No notice under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the State of Chhattisgarh, which is a necessary party, rendering the suit void ab initio; (ii) The suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the right to sue, if any, accrued in 2012 following the dismissal of Writ Appeal No. 82/08, but the present suit has been filed after 11 years without any explanation; and (iii) The suit is further barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC, as the issue regarding the same suit land was earlier adjudicated and finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 5202/2005 and W.A. No. 82/2008. It has been submitted that the claim of the non- applicants is vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process of law, aimed only at harassing the petitioner, who has been in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land since 2001. Moreover, the non-applicants have no locus standi, being neither a direct heir nor having any succession or title-based claim over the suit land. The applicant’s lawful possession, flowing from his appointment as Kotwar, stands affirmed by repeated judicial orders. Moreover, the non-applicants have no locus standi, being neither a direct heir nor having any succession or title-based claim over the suit land. The applicant’s lawful possession, flowing from his appointment as Kotwar, stands affirmed by repeated judicial orders. The learned trial Court has committed a grave jurisdictional error by failing to consider the above legal bars and wrongly proceeded to reject the application merely on the ground that lack of title documents is not sufficient under Order 7 Rule 11. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed for setting aside the order dated 28.04.2025 and allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, while dismissing the non-applicants suit. He has placed reliance upon the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844 , to buttress his submissions. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents along with this civil revision. 6. From perusal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it transpires that the defendant has raised specific and substantial legal objections to the maintainability of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, asserting that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, is barred by limitation, res judicata, and for want of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. It is further evident that the defendant has supported the application with a clear factual background, including previous litigation history, classification of the land as Government service land, and lack of ownership documents on the part of the plaintiff. However, the learned trial court has failed to examine these grounds in their proper legal context and has rejected the application solely on a narrow interpretation, thereby committing an error apparent on the face of the record. 7. Upon careful examination of the pleadings, the impugned order, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 8. 7. Upon careful examination of the pleadings, the impugned order, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 8. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint, without delving into the defence or disputed facts. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Srinivasulu v. M. Munuswamy , AIR 2021 SC 2349, reiterated that “the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to be exercised only if the plaint on its face does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law,” and that “mixed questions of law and fact cannot be decided at the threshold.” 10. Further, in the matter of Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association , (2005) 7 SCC 510 , the Supreme Court held that “the court cannot go beyond the averments in the plaint while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.” 11. Moreover, in the matter of Kamala & Ors. v. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 661 , the Supreme Court held that the court must take a liberal approach at the threshold stage and should not shut out a plaintiff unless the suit is clearly barred on the face of the plaint. 12. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and another passed in Civil Appeal No.7743/2025 decided on 14.07.2025 has dealt with the similar issue and held as follows :- “8. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors, (2021) 9 SC 99 , this court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the court held: “25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows: 25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to. 25.2. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows: 25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to. 25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application. 25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the "previous suit" is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit. 25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the "previous suit", such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused." (emphasis supplied) Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant No. 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser or not need to be examined in detail. This Court has held that such circumstances require an in-depth examination of the previous decree, and its impact on the second suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint. As held by this Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551 , identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023, this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows: “5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023, this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows: “5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. 6. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the Appellate Courts. Therefore, we make it clear that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on merits.” 10. From the order passed by the Trial Court it is apparent that there is neither consideration nor analysis of the case set up by the appellant in plaint. Further, the Trial Court questioned the legality of plaintiff’s action on the ground that, “he did not raise any objection regarding the decree passed in O.S. No. 298/96. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the plea of fraud raised by the 1 st respondent is not acceptable one.” With this view of the matter, the Trial Court rejected the objection of the appellant to the applicability of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC by holding; “12. The respondents counsel submitted that such a type of question cannot be decided as preliminary issue. In support of his contention. They have filed our Hon'ble court judgment 2009(4) LW 432 , and 2007 A.L.W 580, 2000(3) MLJ 342 ,2002(1)LW 398. But those are dealing with regarding court fees. But as far as the case on hand is concerned. It is not regarding court fees. Therefore the above said citations is not apply to this suit. For the above said reasons and explanations. The petition is allowed. No cost.” 11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. But as far as the case on hand is concerned. It is not regarding court fees. Therefore the above said citations is not apply to this suit. For the above said reasons and explanations. The petition is allowed. No cost.” 11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. The appellant’s revision under Article 227 was similarly dismissed by the High Court holding that the decision of the Trial Court does not warrant interference. 12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96 dated 29.07.1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not have been decided under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief. 13. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court in CRP (PD) No. 1454 of 2014 dated 20.03.2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Portonovo to its original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. 14. While concluding, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the grounds raised by the defendants, including those relating to res judicata are kept open for final determination.” 13. It is a settled principle of law that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered. The defence raised by the defendant in the written statement or in the application is not to be taken into account at that stage. The non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the State and the suit being barred by limitation are mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be decided on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the State and the suit being barred by limitation are mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be decided on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Being mixed questions of law and fact, they requires adjudication by the trial Court after considering the entire material and evidence on record. Likewise, the cause of action is a bundle of facts that necessitates proper adjudication during trial and not at the threshold stage. Furthermore, it is well settled that for considering the question of res judicata, the pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence led by the parties are required to be examined, which has not been done in the present case. 14. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of M. Srinivasulu (supra), Popat and Kotecha Property (supra), Kamala (supra) and Pandurangan (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered and the defence raised in the written statement or any application is irrelevant at that stage, and further, that the question of res judicata requires proper adjudication after pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence, this Court finds no infirmity in the trial Court's approach in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 15. In the present case, the grounds raised by the revisionist, such as lack of title documents, bar of limitation, res judicata, absence of notice under Section 80 CPC, and lack of locus standi require factual adjudication and cannot be decided solely based on the contents of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The trial court has rightly held that non-submission of ownership documents is not, in itself, a valid ground under Order 7 Rule 11, and that the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s right or title. 16. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the case law relied upon by the applicant in the matter of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust (supra), is of no help to the applicant as the same is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 17. 16. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the case law relied upon by the applicant in the matter of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust (supra), is of no help to the applicant as the same is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 17. In view of the above settled legal principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or perversity, and therefore, no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. 18. Having carefully considered the pleadings, evidence on record, and the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the present revision is not maintainable, primarily on the ground of res judicata, and also because the claim presented by the plaintiff raises a bundle of disputed facts and mixed questions of law and fact already adjudicated in previous proceedings. 19. Accordingly, the instant civil revision is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, and the trial court shall proceed independently in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.