1 2026:CGHC:5741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 28 of 2026 1 - Girja Shankar Jaiswal S/o Late Shobharam Aged About 83 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sai Baba Tiraha, J.K.D. Road, Manendragarh, P.S. And P.O. Manendragarh, District Mcb, C.G. 2 - Gagan Jaiswal S/o Girja Shankar Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sai Baba Tiraha, J.K.D. Road, Manendragarh, P.S. And P.O. Manendragarh, District Mcb, C.G. 3 - Smt. Puja Shivhare W/o Hariom Shivhare Aged About 42 Years R/o In House Of Khushal Mukta Revatkar, Santoshi Mata Ward, Behind Santoshi Mata Mandir, Tahsil Pandhurana, District Chhindwada, M.P. 4 - Priyanka Jaiswal D/o Girja Shankar Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sai Baba Tiraha, J.K.D. Road, Manendragarh, P.S. And P.O. Manendragarh, District Mcb, C.G. ... Applicants versus 1 - Kuldeep Jaiswal S/o Girja Shankar Jaiswal Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Near Rapakherwa School, Manendragarh, P.S. And P.O. Manendragarh, District Mcb, C.G. 2 - Smt. Kiran Jaiswal W/o Sunil Jaiswal @ Pappu Aged About 47 Years R/o Bajar Para, Bamnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 3 - Sadip Kumar Poddar S/o Rajendra Kumar Poddar R/o Mungeli Road, D-14, Green Garden Colony, Ward No. 15, Bilaspur, P.S. And P.O. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Sudhir Kumar Poddar S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Poddar Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Vivekanand Chauk, Manendragarh, P.S. And P.O. Manendragarh, District Mcb, C.G. 5 - Amit Kumar Poddar S/o Ramesh Kumar Poddar Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Vivekanand Chauk, Manendragarh, P.S. And P.O. Manendragarh, District Mcb, C.G. 6 - Ritesh Kumar Poddar S/o Ramesh Kumar Poddar Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Vivekanand Chauk, Manendragarh, P.S. And P.O. Manendragarh, District Mcb, C.G. 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mcb, District Mcb, C.G. .. Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For State :- Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Manendragarh, District MCB (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 51-A/2023, titled “Kuldeep Jaiswal Vs. Girja Shankar Jaiswal & Others”, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicants under Order VII 3 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Revision. 2. Following prayer has been made by way of this revision:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and order dated 29.11.2025 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-1, Manendragarh, District. MCB, C.G. passed in Civil Suit No. 51A/2023, passed in the matter of "Kuldeep Jaiswal Vs. Girja Shankar Jaiswal & Ors." (Annex. A/1) may kindly be set aside and application filed by the applicants/defendant no. 1,2,4, & 5 under order 7 rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (Annex. A/8) may kindly be allowed and suit filed by the plaintiff/res. no. 1 may kindly be dismissed.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted Civil Suit No. 51-A/2023 seeking declaration of title, partition of 1/6th share, possession, declaration of the registered sale deed dated 11.09.2023 as null and void and not binding upon him, and permanent injunction in respect of Khasra No. 372 admeasuring 1.2630 hectares, situated at Manendragarh, District MCB (C.G.), claiming the land to be ancestral joint family property allegedly settled in the name of his grandfather and thereafter his father, defendant No.1, and asserting coparcenary rights by birth. Defendant No.1 categorically denied the ancestral nature of the 4 property and pleaded exclusive ownership on the basis of settlement during Missal Bandobast of the year 1944-45 and partition effected in the year 1973-74. Defendant No.1 further raised objections regarding bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, limitation, improper valuation of the suit and insufficiency of court fee, and justified the sale of the land in question in favour of defendants No.6 to 9. After filing of written statements and framing of issues, defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the aforesaid grounds, which was opposed by the plaintiff. However, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 29.11.2025, rejected the said application holding that the suit involves adjudication of civil rights relating to title, partition and validity of the sale deed, that no challenge to settlement proceedings as such was made, and that the suit is not barred under Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, giving rise to the present civil revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants, who were defendants before the trial Court, submits that their application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on different grounds has been illegally dismissed by the learned trial Court. It is contended that three specific objections were raised: firstly, that the suit is barred by law; secondly, that the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court trying it; and thirdly, that the suit is barred by limitation. 5 According to learned counsel, none of these grounds has been properly considered by the trial Court. It is submitted that without examining the aforesaid aspects, the learned trial Court dismissed the application merely holding that the relief claimed is within the jurisdiction of the court. It was further observed by the trial Court that the bar under Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is not applicable in the present case, and so far as limitation is concerned, the same has not been considered or decided in accordance with law. On these grounds, the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that insofar as the plea that the suit is barred by law is concerned, the trial court ought to have considered the specific objection that the suit is barred under Section 257 of the Code, as no civil suit can be entertained in matters expressly barred under the said provision. It is also contended that from a plain reading of the pleadings, the suit is apparently barred by limitation. Even assuming that the first two grounds were not examined in proper perspective, the trial Court ought to have at least considered the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the averments in the plaint itself disclose that the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rightly rejected. It is contended that the plaint does not disclose any bar under Section 257 of the Code on its face 6 and the question of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact which cannot be decided at the threshold. It is further submitted that the trial Court has rightly held that the suit is within its pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. On perusal of the record and the averments made in the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has instituted the suit raising issues which the applicants contend are barred by law under Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and also by limitation. However, at this stage, from a plain reading of the plaint alone, it cannot be conclusively held that the suit is ex facie barred either under Section 257 of the Code or by limitation. Both these objections involve questions which would require proper adjudication after framing of issues and permitting the parties to lead evidence. The trial Court, therefore, cannot reject the plaint at the threshold on these grounds in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. However, insofar as the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicants. The question of pecuniary jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and the trial Court was required to frame a specific issue in that regard and adjudicate the 7 same after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Failure to frame and decide an issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction amounts to an error of jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, while affirming the order of the trial Court to the extent it refuses rejection of the plaint on the grounds of bar under Section 257 of the Code and limitation, it is directed that the trial Court shall frame an appropriate issue with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction and decide the same as a preliminary issue, after permitting the parties to lead evidence. In the event the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, it shall return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent Court in accordance with law. The applicants are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned trial Court for framing proper issues in the suit. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the revision petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha