1 2026:CGHC:2102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 205 of 2025 1 - Anandram S/o Late Shyam Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Khadibahar, Tehsil And District- Narayanpur (C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Ratan Singh S/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village Bakulwahi Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 2 - Harendra S/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Village Bakulwahi Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 3 - Shiv Prasad S/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Bakulwahi Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 4 - Kanhaiya Lal S/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Bakulwahi Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 5 - Guljar S/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Bakulwahi Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 6 - Bhuneshwar Singh S/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Bakulwahi Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 7 - Dalbeer S/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Bakulwahi Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 8 - Galmani D/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 68 Years R/o Hirri, Tahsil- Farasgaon Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.). 9 - Nagina D/o Late Dhansingh Village Antagarh Distt- Kanker (C.G.). 10 - Rajkumari D/o Late Dhansingh Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village Antagarh Distt- Kanker (C.G.). 11 - Komal D/o Late Gourichand Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 12 - Kiran @ Hiran D/o Late Gourichand Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 13 - Budhyarin W/o Late Sagram Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 14 - Chakrawati D/o Late Sagram Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 15 - Kulvantin D/o Late Sagram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kejan District- Kondagaon (C.G.). 16 - Lilavati D/o Late Sagram Aged About 30 Years Punder Dhanora, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.). 17 - Chintamani W/o Satish Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 18 - Bhujbal Suryavanski S/o Late Sagram Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 19 - Jagat S/o Late Sirinath Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 3 20 - Budhnibai W/o Late Suraj Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 21 - Jainu W/o Late Sirinath Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 22 - Surajbati W/o Late Savlu Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 23 - Dipika D/o Late Savlu Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chikhdongri Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.). 24 - Gayatri D/o Late Savlu Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 25 - Kiran Kumar S/o Late Savlu Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 26 - Jagmati W/o Late Chainsingh Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 27 - Jagmotin D/o Late Sirinath Aged About 70 Years R/o Belgaon Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 28 - Tuleshwar S/o Late Chainsingh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 29 - Hemraj S/o Late Chain Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 30 - Fulwati D/o Late Chain Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Bhurval Benoor, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 31 - Dhaneshwari D/o Late Chain Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Koyalibeda, Village Jirantarai, Distt- Kanker (C.G.). 4 32 - Parvati D/o Late Sirinath Aged About 68 Years R/o Tadoki Tahsil- Antagarh Distt- Kanker (C.G.). 33 - Motin @ Bhanmati D/o Late Sirinath Aged About 70 Years R/o Kapsi Markatola Distt- Kanker (C.G.). 34 - Jagat S/o Late Sirinath Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 35 - Jain Singh S/o Late Sirinath Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 36 - Kesari W/o Late Pankaj Aged About 60 Years R/o Sahkatta, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur Distt- Kanker (C.G.). 37 - Gaurav S/o Late Pankaj Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Of Kesari W/o Late Pankaj R/o Sakkatta, Tahsil Bhanupratappur District- Kanker (C.G.). 38 - Balkunwar W/o Late Sukhchand Aged About 52 Years R/o Sahkatta, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (C.G.). 39 - Budhni W/o Suresh Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 40 - Girijashankar S/o Suresh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 41 - Sidhman S/o Suresh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bakulwahi,distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 42 - Ahilya W/o Lakhan Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Of Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 43 - Tej Singh S/o Lakhan Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Bakulwahi, 5 Tahsil And Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 44 - Lochan S/o Lakhan Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 45 - Iteshwari D/o Lakhan Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Bakulwahi, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). 46 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Office Of Collectorate, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Rajani Soren, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 10 : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 2/2025 is allowed. 3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and Set-aside order dated order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge 6 Senior Division Narayanpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 07A/2024 Ratan Singh & others Vs. Komal and others, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case, is that, the respondents/plaintiffs have instituted a civil suit for declaration, partition, and possession in respect of the suit property, which is presently owned by and in the occupation of the applicant and other defendants, on the allegation that the disputed property, having once been sold, was subsequently and illegally resold, accordingly, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the subsequent sale deeds are void, along with declaration of ownership, partition, and possession. That the applicant thereafter filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the cause of action and maintainability of the said suit, contending inter alia that the plaint does not disclose the date of death of Johar Singh and that, as per the averments in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the cause of action, if any, arose decades ago, rendering the suit hopelessly time-barred; further, it was urged that the plaintiffs cannot rely upon the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, District Narayanpur, to extend or revive limitation, as the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to direct the filing of a civil suit and the said order itself is under challenge in appeal, and therefore the suit deserved rejection at the threshold. That the respondents/plaintiffs filed their reply dated 05.03.2025 denying the submissions of the applicant. However, the learned 7 trial court did not accept the submissions advanced by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was pleased to dismiss the said application vide order dated 03.04.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant most respectfully submits that the applicant has preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint, specifically on the ground that the suit as instituted is clearly barred by limitation, and that from a plain and meaningful reading of the averments made in the plaint itself, no cause of action survives in law, thereby rendering the continuation of the suit an abuse of the process of the Court and liable to be rejected at the threshold. 6. The learned Trial Court, while adjudicating upon the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has dismissed the same after due consideration, holding that the issue of limitation constitutes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold stage without a full-fledged examination of the pleadings and evidence; the Court observed that such an issue can be appropriately adjudicated only after the trial, upon consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of this settled legal position, found no merit in the application and accordingly rejected it. 8 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that, on a plain and meaningful reading of the averments contained in the plaint itself, the suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation and, therefore, does not disclose a cause of action which can be adjudicated upon by this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that when the bar of limitation is evident from the pleadings on record, the Court is duty-bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reject the plaint at the very threshold, without compelling the parties to undergo the rigours of a full-fledged trial, as continuation of such a time-barred suit would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while adjudicating an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein, without embarking upon a roving or detailed inquiry into disputed questions. It is contended that the issue of limitation, by its very nature, constitutes a mixed question of law and fact, the determination of which depends upon appreciation of evidence and examination of the factual matrix, including the cause of action and its accrual, which can only be properly undertaken during the course of trial. Therefore, at the threshold stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plea of 9 limitation cannot be conclusively adjudicated and does not warrant rejection of the plaint. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. From a bare perusal of the record, it is manifest that the applicant/defendant is primarily assailing the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, contending that the cause of action, if any, arose from the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Collector, and that the institution of the suit beyond the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned from the said date, renders the same legally untenable and liable to be rejected at the threshold. 11. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently and unequivocally held, while deciding a catena of judgments, that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which necessarily requires examination of pleadings, evidence, and attendant circumstances, and therefore cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the threshold merely on the basis of averments made in the plaint while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been repeatedly emphasized that unless the bar of limitation is apparent on the face of the plaint itself, the issue must be left open to be decided after a full-fledged trial. In view of the settled legal position and the binding precedents governing the field, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the law and facts of the 10 case and, by dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, has not committed any illegality, infirmity, or error of law warranting interference. 12. The concerned trial Court is accordingly directed to frame an appropriate and specific issue on the aspect involved and to adjudicate the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties to lead their respective oral and documentary evidence, and upon a comprehensive appreciation of the entire material available on record, so as to ensure a just, fair, and reasoned determination of the controversy in accordance with settled legal principles. 13. With this observation and direction, the revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat