1 2026:CGHC:6078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 47 of 2026 1 - Panna Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Jagdeesh Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Plot No. 228/64, Virat Nagar, Borsi, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant -1) 2 - Chimendra Sahu S/o Shri Panna Lal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Plot No. 228/64, Virat Nagar, Borsi, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh (Defendant -2) 3 - Anita Sahu D/o Shri Panna Lal Sahu Aged About 46 Years Chief Medical Officer At Government Hospital, Bemetara, Government Hospital, Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Defendant -3) 4 - Arun Sahu S/o Shri Panna Lal Sahu Aged About 44 Years Assistant Engineer - 132 Office, Sub-Station Next To Regional Office Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant -4) ...Applicants versus 1 - Ku. Paridhi Sahu D/o Late Shri Ajay Sahu Aged About 11 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Yindulata Sahu, D/o Shri Narayan Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Jangalpur, Tehsil - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its District Magistrate Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 5) .. Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :- Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. The present revision petition is being filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the learned Court below has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite the plaint being barred by law and not disclosing any cause of action. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this revision petition:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ and quash / set- aside the Order dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajnandgaon, 3 District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the above writ petition and grant the relief mentioned in application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, in the interest of justice. 3. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land admeasuring approximately 1.5190 hectares (3.80 acres) situated at village Chirchari Khurd, P.H. No. 00012, R.N.M. Khursitikul, Tehsil Kumarda, District Rajnandgaon. She claimed herself to be the daughter of late Ajay Kumar Sahu, who was the son of defendant No.1/petitioner No.1 herein and who died in the year 2017. On the said basis, she asserted a right in the suit property allegedly standing in the exclusive name of defendant No.1. However, in the plaint itself, the plaintiff admitted that defendant No.1 is the exclusive title holder and in possession of the suit property and that the said property was inherited by him from his father. The plaintiff further pleaded that since her father would have been entitled to a 1/5th share had he been alive, she is entitled to claim a share in the suit property. During the lifetime of defendant No.1, the plaintiff has no vested or accrued right in 4 the property. Accordingly, defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action and is barred by law. In reply, the plaintiff attempted to improve her case by stating that the suit was filed merely for “security purposes,” which is impermissible in law. The learned Trial Court, without appreciating the settled legal position and the clear admissions made in the plaint itself, dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 10.10.2025, which is ex facie illegal and perverse, giving rise to the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submits that the present revision has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2025, whereby the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the subject matter of the dispute raised by the petitioners pertains to the maintainability of a suit for partition during the lifetime of the original holder, which, according to the applicants, is not maintainable and therefore liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has erred in law in holding that the dispute raised by the applicants cannot be adjudicated unless and until evidence is adduced. It is contended that the said finding is contrary to the law laid down by the High Court of Delhi in Kritika Jain vs. Rakesh Jain & Another in CS(OS) 679/2024 and I.A. 5 37445/2024, wherein it has been held that a partition suit during the lifetime of the original holder is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a perusal of the reliefs claimed in the suit, it appears that the plaintiff has sought only a declaration of her right in respect of the share which her late father was holding, along with a consequential relief of injunction restraining alienation/sale in respect of her portion. No relief of possession or partition as such has been claimed. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit is one for partition filed during the lifetime of the original holder so as to render it not maintainable. Further, from the record it prima facie appears that the property in question is ancestral in nature. The petitioner, being the daughter of late Ajay Sahu, son of Panna Lal Sahu, claims to be a coparcener. It is well settled that a coparcener has a right in coparcenary property, and the nature and extent of such right can only be adjudicated upon after evidence is led. At this stage, the dispute raised by the defendants cannot be conclusively determined while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 7. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall frame appropriate issues and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. 6 8. Accordingly, the revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha