-1- 2025:CGHC:16323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 245 of 2020 Shyam Kumar Goyal S/o Late Murari Lal Goyal Aged About 57 Years R/o Saraju Bageecha, Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhagan Lal Yadav S/o Late Jageshwar Prasad Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o In Front Of Ajanta Saw Mill, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- writ/or writs/order/or orders, to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned IX Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh and allow the both applications under order 7 rule 11 as well as application under order 6 rule 16 read with section 151 of C.P.C. and dismiss the suit, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2) Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1/plaintiff failed to value the suit property in accordance with the prevailing guidelines issued by the Central Valuation Board and Registry Office. The actual value of the suit property is Rs. 83,00,000/-, but the plaintiff has undervalued it and failed to affix proper court fee, thereby rendering the suit not maintainable before the learned IXth Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur, to entertain the matter in the absence of pecuniary jurisdiction. 3) He would further submit that the boundary of the suit property has been incorrectly shown by the plaintiff, and the property in question actually falls under the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 1605/2. He would also submit that despite filing applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC seeking the dismissal of the suit on these legal grounds, the learned trial Court has erroneously rejected the same without due consideration of the material on record. He -3- would pray that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, thus liable to be set aside, and the plaintiff’s suit may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the order impugned. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6) From a perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the learned Court below while deciding the applications moved by the petitioner/defendant No.1, recorded findings that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction pertaining to land bearing Survey No. 1605/1, admeasuring 0.020 hectare. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 objected to the suit by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, on the ground that the suit is not properly valued and sufficient court fee has not been paid, and suggested the valuation of the suit property at Rs. 83,00,000/- on the basis of guidelines. However, as per Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is free to value the suit at his discretion for declaratory relief. The plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 3,00,000/- for declaration and Rs. 600/- for injunction and paid the court fee accordingly, -4- which appears to be proper. The learned Court below while touching the question of boundary dispute raised by the defendant stated that the same is a matter of evidence, and not relevant at that stage. Hence, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. Further, the learned Court below found the subsequent application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC, being filed on the same grounds, not maintainable and thus rejected the same. In the opinion of this Court, no good grounds are involved in the present petition warranting interference with the order impugned. 7) Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM