1 2026:CGHC:4545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 294 of 2025 Santosh Lohana S/o Lt. Ashok Lohana Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 67, Near Dronacharya Public School, Pavan Vihar Colony, Rishabh Nagar, Amlidih, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 3) ...Applicant. versus 1 - Ku. Neha Banjare D/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o - Village Chachanperi, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, C.G. (Plaintiff No. 1). 2 - Ku. Kavita Banjare D/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 25 Years R/o - Village Chachanperi, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, C.G. (Plaintiff No. 2). 3 - Suyash Banjare S/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 23 Years R/o - Village Chachanperi, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, C.G. (Plaintiff No. 3). 4 - Tikendra Banjare S/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 19 Years R/o - Village Chachanperi, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, C.G. (Plaintiff No. 4). 5 - Minor Rohan Banjare Aged About 16 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Bhagwati Banjare, W/o Surendra Banjare, R/o - Village Chachanperi, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, C.G. (Plaintiff No. 5). 6 - Surendra Banjare S/o Lt. Kartikram Banjare Aged About 52 Years R/o AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA 2 Simarn City, Chaurasia Colony, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G., Office Address - Surendra Banjare Teacher (Sankul Samanvayak), Village Kendri, Post And Tehsil Abhanpur, Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 1). 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No. 2). ... Respondents. For Applicant : Shri Akash Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Hariom Rai, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/01/2026 1. By way of this Civil Revision, applicant prays to set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the 1st Additional Judge, Raipur of 1st Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. in Civil Suit No.54A/2024 by which application preferred by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. Prayer for rejection of the said suit has also been made. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs preferred civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against their own father defendant no. 01 on the ground that the suit property was originally owned by their grandfather Lt. Kartikram Banjare which after his death devolved through succession to defendant no. 01. It is imperative to state here that such vague statement was made by the plaintiffs about the suit property being ancestral and no document to substantiate or corroborate such averment was annexed to the civil suit. The plaintiffs also averred in the suit that their mother Smt. Bhagwati Banjare is 3 legally wedded wife of defendant no. 01 whose marriage was solemnized some 29-30 years back and that she resided with the said defendant. The plaintiffs in their own plaint have impliedly admitted that the suit property never remained in the name of their grandfather and to conceal the property's nature of being self-acquired, the plaintiffs have skillfully mentioned that the suit property was directly mutated in the name of defendant no. 01 which according to them had devolved through family partition. It is also worth mentioning here that though the family partition devolution of the suit property has been mentioned in the plaint but no document in this respect has been filed before the trial court. The plaintiffs in their suit have wrongly averred that defendant no. 01 had kept a concubine and is trying to sell the suit property and is further denying to partition it. It has also been averred that the said defendant has sold part of suit property i.e., khasra no. 94, 94, 96, 97, 98/1 admeasuring 2.33 hectare to the revisionist vide sale deed dated 21.11.2024 and the same has been annexed along with the suit according to which the sale deed is valued at 75 Lakhs. A copy of sale deed dated 21.11.2024 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure A/3. From a bare perusal of the civil suit, it is also apparent that the plaintiffs have not only preferred their claim of declaration and partition but have also sought relief of annulment against the sale deed dated 21.11.2024 without even valuing the suit in accordance with section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act. Further, after appearance, the revisionist herein preferred an application under 07 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the property being self-acquired property of defendant no. 01 cannot be challenged by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs can further not claim partition over the self-acquired property. It was also the averment 4 in the application that such suit is barred under the Hindu Succession Act 2005 r/w section 164 of the Land Revenue Code. The revisionist also averred that the claim of partition of agricultural land could be claimed u/s 178 of the C.G. LRC, therefore, the case for partition falls within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts and the claim of partition of an agricultural property is barred u/s 257 of the said Code. Plaintiffs while contending the averments of the application, filed their respective replies, however, the trial Court without appreciating the relevant provisions of law, rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue involved in the matter is that the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly and if proper valuation would be made and proper court fees would be paid then it will be beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court wherein the case is being tried. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that if it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court then the matter attracts provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC and the plaint is required to be rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the issue of valuation of proper court fees shall be decided by the trial Court after framing of issues. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From perusal of record, it appears that the main grievance of the Defendant No.3/applicant herein is regarding valuation of the suit/plaint and affixation of the court fees. The aforesaid issue can’t be adjudicated in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. For 5 deciding the said issue, an appropriate issue is required to be framed and thereafter, after considering the said issue while taking evidence, the same can be decided. Therefore, learned trial Court is directed to frame preliminary issues in this respect and decide the same after taking evidence of the parties and if the case seems to be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction then the plaint be returned as per Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC for presentation of the same before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this Revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash