1 2026:CGHC:5742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 36 of 2026 1 - Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Agrawal Aged About 63 Years R/o Vill- Ponch Tah. Baloda Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address 14 Behind Anupam Plaza Ward No. 20, Champa, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Manikant Agrawal S/o Late Shri Budhaprakash Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o Vill- Ponch- Tah- Baloda Dist- Janjgir-Champa Present Address Income Tax Bhawan (G.S.T. Premises ) Janjgir, Tah- Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - Sudhir Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Agrawal Aged About 82 Years Vill- Ponch Tah. Baloda Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address Astha Plot No.207, Sector 10, New Panvel East. Navi Mumbai, Dist- Raigarh (Maharashtra) Pin Number, 410206 2 - Ashok Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Agrawal Aged About 73 Years Vill- Ponch Tah. Baloda Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address Behind Shiv Mandir, Dipupara Vidyanagar Bilaspur, Tah- And Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin Code - 495001 (Plaintiff No 1 And 2) 3 - Director Prakash Industries Limited Champa Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Registered Office -15 K.M. Stone New Delhi Road, Hissar Pin VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Code 125044 Haryana Through General Manager Subhash Hardaha S/o Badri Prasad Hardaha Aged About 55 Years R/o House No.43, Near Wallfort City Natural City Bhatagaon, Tah- And Dist- Raipur (C.G.) (Defendants) 4 - Collector Janjgir Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Akaltara Linkcourt Baloda Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Tahsildar Baloda Tahsil Baloda Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - Patwari P.H. No. 10 Vii- Bokrail (Nawgawa- Pahariya) Tah- Baloda, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8 - Saurabh Singh S/o Late Shri Dhirendra Singh R/o Akaltara Tah- Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) .. Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Mr. Ravindra Sharma & Mr. Akash Agrawal, Advocates For State :- Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicants/defendants challenge the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil 3 Judge, Senior Division, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 74-A/2025, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected. 2. Following prayer has been made by way of this revision:- “It is therefore that this Hon’ble Couort may kindly be pleased to allow the civil revision and quash the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 74-A/2025 and may kindly be pleased to allow the application U/o 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the applicants/defendants No. 1 & 7, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted Civil Suit No. 74-A/2025 on 24.07.2024. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title, declaration of sale deeds dated 09.01.2024 as null and void, and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1180/1-B admeasuring 33.38 acres situated at Village Bokrail, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). The plaintiffs claimed the suit land to be maternal ancestral property earlier recorded in the name of their mother late Smt. Chandravati Bai, who died on 30.12.1996. After her death, the land was recorded in the name of her husband late Laxminarayan Agrawal, who died on 18.04.2002. The plaintiffs 4 alleged that after a lapse of more than twenty-two years, on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 15.01.2001 and in collusion with other defendants, the name of defendant No. 01 was mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendant No. 01 executed sale deeds dated 09.01.2024 in favour of defendant No. 02 without partition or consent of the plaintiffs. Prior to filing of the suit, the Tahsildar, vide order dated 07.02.2024, recorded the suit land in the name of the State Government as Forest Land. The said order has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. Despite the same, the plaintiffs valued the suit at ₹1,200/- only. The plaintiffs did not pay ad valorem court fees. The plaintiffs also did not serve mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants/defendants No. 1 and 7 filed their written statement. The applicants/defendants No. 1 and 7 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was contended that the suit is barred by law, barred by limitation, not maintainable for want of possession, bad for non-joinder of necessary party, and improperly valued. It was further contended that the relief sought effectively challenges registered sale deeds valued at ₹1,33,52,000/-, thereby ousting the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akaltara, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2025, rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Trial Court held that since the 5 plaintiffs are not executants of the sale deeds, they were not required to value the suit as per the sale consideration. Hence, the present Civil Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants, who are defendants before the concerned trial court, submits that their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been illegally dismissed by the trial court. He contends that the principal objection raised by the applicants relates to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, asserting that the suit is beyond the pecuniary competence of the court in which it is pending. It is further submitted that the subject property was sold to Prakash Industries Limited, which in turn transferred the property to the Forest Department, and at present Khasra No. 1180/1-B stands recorded as Government land. Despite the same, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit without serving mandatory notice under Section 80 of the CPC, and therefore, the suit is barred by law. 5. Learned State counsel submits that as per the revenue records, the suit land presently stands recorded as Government Forest land pursuant to the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Tahsildar, which has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. It is contended that in view of the land being recorded in the name of the State, the suit is not maintainable in absence of mandatory notice under Section 80 of the CPC. He further supports the objection regarding jurisdiction and submits that the trial court 6 ought to decide the issue of maintainability and jurisdiction as preliminary issues. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is well settled that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to look only to the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with it. The defence taken in the written statement or in the application cannot be the basis for rejection of the plaint unless such bar is apparent from the plaint itself. On perusal of the plaint, it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the suit is barred by law or that the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs is demonstrably illegal so as to warrant rejection of the plaint outright. The learned trial Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, the objections raised by the defendants regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and compliance of Section 80 CPC are substantial issues touching the maintainability of the suit. The plaint itself discloses that the property has been recorded as Government land. If ultimately it is found that the State is a necessary party and no notice under Section 80 CPC has been served, the consequences would follow in accordance with law. 8. Similarly, the question whether the suit has been properly valued and whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction are mixed 7 questions of fact and law requiring adjudication on the basis of pleadings and evidence. The trial Court ought to frame appropriate issues in this regard and decide them in accordance with law. If the Court finds that it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, it shall pass appropriate orders as contemplated under the CPC. So far as the objection regarding Section 80 CPC is concerned, the trial Court shall frame a specific issue and decide the same as a preliminary issue. In the event the matter is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction, the defendants shall be at liberty to raise all permissible objections available to them under law. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the trial Court shall frame specific issues regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and compliance of Section 80 CPC. The issue relating to Section 80 CPC shall be decided as a preliminary issue in accordance with law. It is further directed that the observations made herein shall not prejudice the merits of the case. 10. As a result, the civil revision stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha