1 2026:CGHC:6887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 48 of 2026 Director Plant J.K. Lakshmi Cement Company Limited, Malpuri Khurd, District - Durg (C.G.). (Defendant No.2) ... Applicant. versus 1 - Ghanshyam Singh Banjare S/o Late Khor Behera Ram Banjare Aged About 55 Years. 2 - Hemchand S/o Late Khor Behera Ram Banjare Aged About 50 Years. 3 - Rahaschand S/o Late Khor Behera Ram Banjare Aged About 46 Years. All R/o 155, Banjare Para, Village - Girhola, District - Durg (C.G.). 4 - Yashwant Singh Banjare S/o Late Devchand Aged About 55 Years R/o - House No. 1159, Ward No. 14, Shankar Nagar, Nawagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.). 5 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Devchand Aged About 44 Years R/o 227-H, Risali Sector, Civic Centre, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.). 6 - Satish Kumar S/o Devchand Aged About 41 Years R/o 155, Village - Girhola, District - Durg (C.G.). AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.17 10:45:59 +0530 2 7 - Gajpal Banjare S/o Late Narayanchand Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o Block 3, Room 3, Street 3, Hospital Department 09, Bhilai-3, District - Durg (C.G.). 8 - Rahul Banjare S/o Late Narayanchand Banjare Aged About 23 Years R/o Block 3, Room 3, Street 3, Hospital Department 09, Bhilai-3, District - Durg (C.G.). 9 - Vinayak Banjare S/o Late Narayanchand Banjare Aged About 20 Years R/o Block 3, Room 3, Street 3, Hospital Department 09, Bhilai-3, District - Durg (C.G.) (Plaintiffs) 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Dm, District - Durg (C.G.). (Defendant No.1) ... Respondents. For Applicant : Shri N Naha Roy, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Hariom Rai, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2026 1. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the 5th Additional Judge to 1st Civil Judge Senior Division, Durg District Durg C.G. in Civil Suit Class A/341/2024 whereby, application preferred by the applicant/Defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 3 (1) of the Limitation Act, 3 1963 has been rejected. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned Court below, thereby seeking for declaration that the land bearing Khasra No.: 1113 Rakba 80 Decimal situated at Village: Girhola, Dist.: Durg (CG) be declared to be the plaintiff's property for it being their ancestral property and as such the revenue records wrongly showing such land to be a grass land be corrected by recording the names of plaintiffs and instead of granting such land to the defendant No2 (present applicant) on lease the same be handed over to the plaintiffs. The respondent Nos.: 1 to 9 further sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants seeking a restraint on a permanent basis against interfering on such land. That, in order to seek the relief(s) as explained above the respondents herein pleaded that one Suraj Bhan Satnami who happened to be the father of the plaintiff No.: 1 to 3 herein and grandfather of plaintiff No.: 4 to 9, in whose name the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.: 459 Rakba 6.53 Acre situated at Village: Girhola, Dist.: Durg (CG) was recorded in the Chakbandi P-1 of 1934. It was pleaded in the plaint that Suraj Bhan Satnami sold 5.73 Acres out of 6.53 Acres to one Punammal Jauje Ramaswamy, which led to recording of such land as Khasra No.: 459/1 leaving the remaining land to the tune of 80 decimal (suit land) to be recorded as Khasra No.: 459/2 in the revenue records which Suraj Bhan Satnami continued to enjoy. It was then 4 pleaded that after the settlement occurred in the year 1984-85, the Khasra No.: 459/2 got renumbered as 1113. The plaintiffs also pleaded that after death of Suraj Bhan Satnami, his son namely: Khor Behera continued to perform agricultural work over the suit land. The plaintiffs further pleaded that after the death of Khor Behera on 12.09.1995, his legal heirs, the plaintiff Nos.: 1 to 3 and one Dev Chand S/o. Khor Behera and Narayan Chand S/o. Khor Behera continued to perform the agricultural work over the suit land. Post death of Dev Chand and Narayan Chand, their legal heirs, i.e., the plaintiff Nos.: 4 to 9 continued to remain in peaceful possession of the suit land. That, in the course of ventilating the grievance, it was pleaded that during the settlement the suit land was shown to be a grassland which fell within the knowledge of the plaintiff after granting such land by the respondent No.: 10 herein in favour of the present applicant, upon which an objection was raised vehemently before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilai-3, Durg (CG) in Jan Chaupal dated 26.06.2023 by categorically raising that the suit land shown as grassland in revenue records was actually the ancestral land of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs sought for an enquiry, whereupon finding no progress had been left with no alternative but to file a suit for declaration. That, the plaintiffs further pleaded that the cause of action to file the civil suit got accrued in their favour when the suit land was shown to be a grassland by the defendant No.: 1 in revenue records and thereafter when there was no action taken 5 by the defendant No.: 1 despite making applications by them in the Jan Chaupal dated 26.06.2023 and on each day on account of handing over of such land in favour of the present applicant on lease. As regarding the statutory period of two months necessary for making appropriate corrections on receiving a notice under Section 80 of the CPC, 1908, the plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant No.: 2 could make illegal constructions over the suit land in the meanwhile which would have defeated their cause as a whole. Further, the suit was being filed against the defendant No.: 1, a public authority for the purpose of obtaining immediate relief and therefore the two months period as prescribed under Section 80 of the CPC, 1908 could not be held to be indispensable. That, the present applicant on being notified by the learned Court below came up with an application under Order 7 Rule 11, СРС, 1908 r/w. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby seeking for rejection of the plaint for it being time barred and based on fabricated and pretentious material. The applicant in such application while relying on paragraph No.: 2 of the plaint and the documents produced by the plaintiffs only pointed out that the land record for 1954-55 for Khasra No.: 459/1 Rakba 5.73 Acres showing the name of Suraj Bhan Satnami as title holder showed one Punammal as the title holder of the same land for the revenue records for the year 1974-75. The applicant further pointed out that contrary to the statement made in plaint in paragraph No.: 1 stating that the remaining land (suit land) bearing Khasra No.: 6 459/2 got recorded in the name of Suraj Bhan Satnami, the revenue records obtained by the present applicant from the land records showed the suit land to be recorded as "Chhote Jhad Ke Jungle Ghas Bhoomi for the year 1954-55 at page No.: 77 itself. The applicants thereafter firmly and categorically objected to the statements made in the plaint saying continuation of possession by the progenies of Suraj Bhan Satnami and performance of agricultural work therein, as there was no document showing Fauti Namantaran in their favour which could be the basis for recording their names as title holders. That, the applicant further vehemently pointed out that the statement with respect to the land bearing Khasra No.: 1113 being wrongly recorded as grassland came into knowledge of the plaintiffs only after handing over of such land by the Mineral Department in its favour (Permission to enter into land is dated 20.03.2023) turns out to be per se questionable and unreliable for the plaintiff failed to explain that if such land was recorded wrongly as a grassland during settlement of 1984-85 then subsequent to death of Khor Behera on 12.09.1995 how they came into possession and engaged in agricultural work. The plaintiffs miserably failed to explain as to how they came in possession without a Fauti Namantaran. That, the applicant respectfully submits that the suit was highly barred by time for the Khasra No.: 459/2 (renumbered as 1113) having shown as Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle/Ghas Bhoomi in the land records of 1954-55 and subsequently wrongly recorded as a grassland during the 7 settlement occurred in 1984-85 clearly conveyed that the cause of action had been accrued to the plaintiffs since 1984-85, whereas just to cover up such huge delay the plaintiffs had taken an improper plea of having come to know of such mistake only after handing over of such land to the present applicant through lease dated 20.03.2023 only, which had a direct impact to the root of the matter. As such the plaint being highly barred by time and based on misleading facts merited rejected. The applicant respectfully submits that the ordinary time frame for filing a declaration suit being three years from arising of cause of action, which having been overreached very heavily, the suit was liable to be dismissed. At the end, the applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3043, wherein the non-seriousness in pursuing the cause had been seriously criticized and was found unforgivable. Explaining the matter as above the applicant sought for rejection of the civil suit. That, the plaintiffs filed their reply dated 04.08.2024 to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, however failed to counter any of the questions raised in the application with respect to the maintainability of the civil suit. That, the learned Court below after considering the rival submissions instead of considering the pith and substance of the application filed by the applicant recorded that the civil suit was pending since 2024 and was expecting a written statement. Regarding the question of rejection of the civil 8 suit being time barred, the learned court recorded that the question of limitation being a question of facts and law could be decided only on merits and not otherwise. The learned Court further held that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 1908 were not applicable on the contents of plaint and the decree sought and as such went on to reject the application vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure A/1). That, the applicant respectfully submits that the order impugned dated 16.10.2025 being apparently suffering from the vice of absolute arbitrariness and a complete misunderstanding of the concept of limitation by holding that such question is necessarily a question of fact and law and therefore can be decided on merits only miserably fails to stand the litmus test on the principles of reasonability at the very conceptual level for the question of limitation remaining open to be decided on the basis of facts and law as also exclusively on legal parameters, depending on case- to-case basis. Το bolster this aspect, may the applicant refer to Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the CPC, 1908 r/w. the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 557 which infact expects the Court of law to consider the disposal of the case on an issue of law only and in such case such issue deserves a prior decision in case if it relates to i) the jurisdiction of the Court, ii) a situation where suit is barred by any law including the question of limitation, then in such case such issue deserves to be determine on priority 9 basis over the other issues. Applying the aforesaid principle over the facts involved in the present case it needs not mention that the learned Court below apparently failed to appreciate and apply the concept of limitation at the appropriate stage but has postponed the same to be decided on merits in an absolutely mechanical manner showing no application of mind, since the contents of the plaint even on being taken as it is blatantly fails to explain the accrual of the cause of action after leasing out of the land by the respondent State to the present applicant which is per se unreliable for the land use having stood changed into grassland during the settlement of 1984-85, which the plaintiffs didn't find necessary to explain in the plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court utterly failed to appreciate the settled legal principles while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and straight away went on to record that the question of limitation raised by the applicant herein was a question of facts and law and could be decided only on merits and not otherwise, rather than framing a preliminary issue on the question of limitation and deciding the same as the issue of limitation goes directly to the root of the matter. He submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the inordinate delay on the part of respondents/plaintiff in filing the civil suit which stood barred by time since long i.e. 1984-85 and permissible limit being three years, which prima facie would have been easily ascertained by a mere perusal of the plaint lest by 10 framing a preliminary issue. Learned counsel in support of his contention would place reliance in the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbiri & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.10834 of 2010. Paragraph 26 of the said judgment reads as under:- "26.The relief sought for, in suit No.410/2000 would reveal that the first prayer, which is the main prayer, is declaratory in nature. Even according to the plaintiffs, as revealed from the plaint the second prayer (extracted hereinbefore) is only consequential relief. A perusal of the same would undoubtedly show that it is consequential and not an independent one and therefore the courts below are right in holding that the said prayer is grantable only if the first prayer is granted. In this case based on the determination on the preliminary issue of limitation and in accordance with the decision on that preliminary issue the suit was dismissed. As held by the three-judge Bench in the decision in Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties1 the provisions under Order XIV Rule 2(1) and Rule 2(2) (b) permit to deal with and dispose of a suit in accordance with the decision on the preliminary issue. In the case on hand in view of the nature of 1 {(2020) 6 SCC 557} 11 the finding on the preliminary issue and the consequential consideration of the suit in terms of Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) and taking note of the fact that the suit do not survive after such consideration we find no reason to consider the contention of the appellants with reference to Order VII Rule 11 based on the decisions relied on by them and referred hereinbefore. So also, the contentions of the appellants based on Articles 17 and 65 also would pale into insignificance and warrant no consideration at in all, the circumstances " 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the revision 5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that Defendant No.2 has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of suit on the ground that even from the averments of the plaint it can be ascertained that the suit is barred by time. Though the question of limitation is mixed question of law and facts but the suit which was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction goes to show that it is barred by limitation. Further the cause of action which has been shown by the plaintiff/respondents also does not exist as such, the suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 6. The trial Court while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC though has held that the issue of limitation as well 12 as cause of action which the defendant has raised as a grounds for rejection of the plaint is a mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be adjudicated in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which appears to be plausible, however, considering the aspect that the point of limitation is the root of the case, as such, the concerned trial Court is directed to frame preliminary issue in respect of limitation of suit after giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and if it appears that the suit is barred by limitation then the trial Court may pass appropriate orders regarding the suit. 7. It is made clear that at this stage this Court has not made any observation in respect of limitation and cause of action and the concerned trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Civil Revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash