1 2026:CGHC:6886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 4 of 2026 1 - Janak Ram Dhruw S/o Late Khorbahra Dhruw Aged About 45 Years. 2 - Janki Bai Dhruw D/o Late Khorbahra Dhruw Aged About 60 Years. 3 - Ganga Bai Dhruw D/o Late Khorbahra Dhruw Aged About 40 Years. 4 - Jayantri @ Jantreen Bai Dhruw Wd/o Late Khorbahra Dhruw Aged About 65 Years. All are R/o Village Gatapara, Thana And Tehsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur C.G. (Defendants Nos.1 to 4) ... Applicants. versus 1 - Aatmaram Dhruw S/o Late Sonouram Dhruw Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Gatapara, Thana And Tehsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur C.G. (Plaintiff) 2 - Sis Nag S/o Late Subahu Nag Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Devrikhurd Housing Board Colony, Dondekala, Raipur C.G. (Defendant No.5) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Raipur C.G. ... Respondents. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.23 18:57:23 +0530 2 For Applicants : Shri Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondents: Shri Hariom Rai, PL. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shivam Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2026 1. This Revision has been preferred against the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the 6th Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur C.G., whereby application preferred by the applicants/Defendant Nos.1 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 has been rejected and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been allowed to continue. 2. The applicants through this Civil Revision have prayed to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and to dismiss the Civil Case No.246A/23 pending before 6th Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge Class II, Raipur C.G. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that the plaintiff who is respondent no. 01 herein has filed one civil suit seeking declaration of title & permanent injunction in his favor vis-à-vis the subject land situated in Village Gatapaга, P.H.N. 25, R.N.M. Nawapara, Tehsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur C.G. bearing Khasra No. 718 admeasuring 0.110 Hectare which is under the ownership & possession of the family of present applicants. Hereinafter, the above-stated holding of the land is referred as the "Subject land". The plaintiff has also made another prayer, among others, that the Sale Deed dated 29.11.2022 executed by the present revesioners 3 in favor of one Sis Nag (respondent no. 02) may be declared as void because as per the plaintiff's claim, the Subject land was sold by the late father/husband of the present revisioners, through an orally entered agreement, to the late father of the plaintiff/respondent no. 01 while admitting that there is no sale deed or any other document executed as such to that effect. The plaintiff has alleged that there was oral agreement executed between the late father/husband of the present revisioners and the late father of the plaintiff/respondent no. 01, however, he has not sought any relief from the Court below vis-à-vis specific performance of the so-called oral agreement arrived between the two parties thereto, who have both now passed away. That, given the attempt by the plaintiff/ respondent no. 01 to misuse the process of law with the sole intention of harassing the present revisioners, the present revisioners had moved the application under Order 7, R.11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint with costs, but, the said application has been illegally rejected by the Court below vide the impugned Order (Annexure P/1) and the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 01 has been illegally allowed to be continued, against which, the present revisioners have filed the instant revision application/petition before this Hon'ble High Court. The present revisioners have the ownership and possession of the Subject land since the days of their father/husband and now they have legally executed the Sale Deed dated 29.11.2022 vis-à-vis sale of the Subject land in favor 4 of respondent no. 02 herein. The plaint filed by the plaintiff has ill motives in the backdrop who wants to illegally encroach upon the Subject land. The Court of Nayab Tehsildar, Abhanpur 03, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) has appropriately and after following the principles of natural justice has passed the Order dated 05.07.2023 u/S. 109 & 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to the effect that the name of Sis Nag/respondent no. 02 has been entered in the revenue records vis-à-vis the Subject land. The impugned plaint instituted by the plaintiff/respondent no. 01 is registered before the Court of the 6th Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur (C.G.) as Civil Case No. 246A/23. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has himself admitted in the plaint that there is no sale deed or any other registered/unregistered document available in support of his claim and he is only relying on the so-called oral agreement executed between the late father/husband of the present revisioners and late father of the plaintiff/Respondent No.1 who both were cousin brothers. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has not sought any relief from the Court below vis-a-vis specific performance of the so called oral agreement arrived at between the two parties thereto, who have both now passed away and the plaintiff has not affixed the requisite court fees along with the plaint and thus the same deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 5 6. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that in light of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r/w Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act, it is pertinent to mention that plaintiff/Respondent No.1 does not have any sale deed or any other registered/unregistered document available in support of his claim and thus he does not have any legal right in relation to the subject land, being an immovable property. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel places reliance in the matter of Suraj Lamp And Industries Private Limited (2) THROUGH DIRECTOR vs. State of Haryana and Another {(2012) 1 SCC 656} and also in the matter of S.E. Zarina Begum & Others vs. P.M.S. Latiff decided on 10.03.2016 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras {2016-2-L.W.726} and in the matter of Gunjan Agrawal vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam and Another decided on 25.11.2025 by the High Court of Allahabad {2025 SCC OnLine All 7772}. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that applicants are not seeking any relief against the State and the dispute is between applicants and other respondents. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the revision. 9. From the perusal of the plaint it appears that plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of sale deed in question to be null and void, permanent injunction while stating that the property is ancestral property and father of plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has entered into 6 an oral settlement with father/husband of Defendant Nos.1 to 4/applicants and on the basis of said settlement, plaintiff/Respondent No.1 came into possession of the suit property. 10. The ground which has been raised by the Defendant Nos.1 to 4/applicants that on the basis of unregistered documents, plaintiff cannot seek declaration of his title and even if the plaintiff is raising claim on the basis of some oral agreement arrived at between the parties then plaintiff has to file suit for specific performance of contract as also the question of non payment of adequate court fees and valuation are all subject matters of the trial and all these aspects which infact are the grounds raised by the defendants Nos.1 to 4 in the written statement or in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be considered while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 11. 11. It is trite law that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are required to be seen and all other issues which are being raised by the defendants are the subject matter of the trial. The concerned trial Court during the course of trial will frame appropriate issue and will decide the matter on such issues. 12. Plea of cause of action, valuation of suit, payment of adequate court fees and the tenability of suit are the subject matter of the trial and the trial Court on the basis of dispute raised in the written statement will frame adequate issues during the course of trial 7 and after taking evidence of the parties, the said issues will be decided, however, the same cannot be decided in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 13. The concerned trial Court has dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the defendants No.1 to 4/applicants stating that the grounds which have been raised with regard to payment of court fees and tenability of the suit are the subject matter of the trial and cannot be decided at this stage without framing of issues. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application preferred by the applicants/Defendant nos.1 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the order passed by the trial Court is well merited, which is not required to be interfered with. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash