1 2026:CGHC:10857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 7 of 2024 Vijay Kesharwani S/o Hazari Lal Kesharwani Aged About 64 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) --- Applicant. versus 1 - Virendra Kumar Garhewal S/o Ramratan Garhewal Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Manendragarh, Thana And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Purshottam Gupta S/o Shyamlal Gupta Aged About 61 Years R/o Haldibadi Chirimiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 3 - Rajendra Gupta S/o Shyamlal Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Haldibadi Chirimiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - Suresh Gupta S/o Shyamlal Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Haldibadi Chirimiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 5 - Government Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Manendragarh- Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) --- Respondents. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.03.18 11:10:19 +0530 2 CR No. 42 of 2024 Vijay Kesharwani S/o Hazari Lal Kesharwani, Aged About 64 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirimiri Bharatpur C.G. ---Applicant. Versus 1 - Deepak Sharma S/o Rampal Sharma, Aged About 48 Years R/o Agrawal Lodge Road Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirimiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Purshottam Gupta S/o Shyamlal Gupta, Aged About 61 Years R/o Haldibadi Chirimiri Tahsil Khadgawa District Manendragarh Chirimiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajendra Gupta S/o Shyamlal Gupta, Aged About 50 Years R/o Haldibadi Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Manendragarh Chirimiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Suresh Gupta S/o Shyamlal Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Haldibadi Chirimiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Manendragarh Chirimiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Government Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Manendragarh, Chirimiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents. For Applicants : Shri Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 in CR No.7/2024 : Shri Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 3 02/03/2026 1. Since the issue involved in both the civil revisions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. CR No.7 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Manendragarh District MCB, Chhattisgarh whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No.28A/2023 filed by the applicant/Defendant No.4 has been rejected. 3. CR No.42 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Manendragarh District MCB, Chhattisgarh whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No.29A/2023 filed by the applicant/Defendant No.4 has been rejected. 4. For the purposes of disposal, facts pleaded in CR No.7 of 2024 are being referred to. Respondent No. 1 lives as tenant in an area of 20/34 Sq. Ft.(15 x 35 sq. ft. in CR No.42 of 2024) in first floor of the building constructed on Plot No. 37/6A in Manendragarh town which is suit property. The accommodation was given on rent by Vijendra Gupta who was predecessor in title of the property. The applicant purchased the land and house constructed on Plot No. 37/6A admeasuring 1820 Sq. Ft. vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.2013 from joint owners of the property. Before purchasing the aforesaid property necessary application for permission was moved before the learned Additional Collector 4 Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). Vide order dated 18.03.2013 the necessary permission was granted. It is pertinent to mention here that though the property in issue bears the Plot No. 37/6A admeasuring 65x28 PL. 1820 Sq. FL. and in the order dated 18.03.2013 this Plot Number is correctly mentioned at 37/6A in the beginning, however, presumably due to inadvertence, the Plot Number has been mentioned as 37/6. The pleadings in forth coming paras would show that the Respondent No. 1 after having lost in the proceeding under the Rent Control Act, 2011 has attempted to start a fresh round of legal battle merely on the basis of this small discrepancy. That for eviction of the Respondent. No. 1 from suit accommodation the Applicant filed the Revenue Case No. 201909010400009/03/A-90 (3) {201808010400018/11/A-90 (3) in CR/42/2024} Year 2017-18 under Section 12 of the Act of 2011. That feeling aggrieved by the eviction order the Respondent No. 1 preferred the appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal Raipur (C.G.) bearing Appeal No. 06A/2021{05A/2021 in CR/42/2024}. Vide order dated 20.01.2023 learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1.That feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal the Respondent No. 1 filed writ petition under Article 226 before the Hon'ble High Court bearing WPC No. 859/2023{WPC/897 of 2023 in CR No.42 of 2024}. Vide order dated 10.04.2023 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 directing to vacate the suit premises within 6 weeks. That after loosing the legal battle before the Hon'ble High 5 Court rather than vacating the suit premises the Respondent No. 1 chose to file a Civil Suit for declaration and consequential relief bearing the Civil Suit No. 28A of 2023 {Civil Suit No.29A/2023 in CR No.42 of 2024}. The Petitioner also filed a Contempt Case before this Hon'ble Court being 572/2023 which was disposed observing liberty to avail the remedy of execution of eviction order under Section 11 of the Act of 2011. The Petitioner has been pursuing the matter for eviction of the Respondent No. 1 before the Rent Control Authority. To escape the eviction even after loosing in the writ petition the Respondent No. 1 filed the suit. A perusal of the plaint allegation, particularly of para 2 to 4 shows that the entire challenge to the sale deed is based on automatic termination of lease and discrepancy of the Plot No. 37/6A. That the Petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 before the learned Trial Court, the ground in the application was of Non-disclosure of a cause of action and suit being barred by law. The Respondent No. 1 filed a reply to this application. Reply to the application shows that the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed. However, vide impugned order learned Trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed erroneously by the concerned trial Court. Because Respondent No.1/plainitff is a tenant of the applicant, and as such, he is liable to be evicted from the suit property. The said fact 6 has attained finality in legal proceedings as such, suit before the trial Court is nothing but a mischievous device to avoid eviction from the suit property. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that before the concerned Court, trial is going on, issues have been framed, and the evidence of the parties is being taken in a suit for declaration and ancillary relief. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available with the revision. 8. From the perusal of record, it appears that earlier a suit for eviction was allowed in favour of the landlord/applicant and that order was confirmed in favour of the landlord/applicant up to this Court and in WPC No.859 of 2023, wherein, tenant was directed to vacate the suit accommodation within six weeks and accordingly, it seems that the tenant has vacated the suit premises, however, subsequently the tenant has filed a suit for declaration of title and ancillary relief for his rights which the landlord is challenging stating that the suit is not maintainable. 9. The said suit filed by the tenant/Respondent No.1 for declaration can be filed under whatsoever grounds such as title etc., the same can only be adjudicated by the concerned trial Court and at the stage of consideration of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the defence raised by the defendant is not required to be seen, only plaint averments are required to be seen. 10.Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vinod Infra 7 Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208 held as under:- “8. The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the plaint, on its face and without considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected. Keeping in mind this settled principle of law, we proceed to examine whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.” 11.For the aforesaid discussion and in light of the principles rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned which does not warrant interference of this Court. 12.In the result, both the revisions are dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash