1 2026:CGHC:23617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 132 of 2026 1 - Lalita Sahu W/o Ramnath Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Machkhanda School Para Post Nargoda, P.S. Seepat Tahsil Seepat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Hemlal Sahu S/o Pila Dau Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o H.N.- 70/6, Vidhya Vihar Colony Near Krishna Public School Nehru Nagar West Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Gorelal Uike, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 11.06.2026 1. The present Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order dated 04.04.2026 passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bilaspur in Civil Suit (A) No. 92/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.06.16 16:59:02 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is the defendant before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff is prosecuting the suit for vacant possession and damages of the suit property which is the house situated at land Khasra No. 1236/44, Area- 1283.15 Sq.Ft. situated at Vivekanand Nagar, Mopka, Bilaspur. The earlier Khasra No of the land over which the suit house is situated was 1236/38 and after its mutation, it comes in Khasra No. 1236/44. He would further submit that the suit house was purchased by the defendant for the total consideration of Rs. 15,61,000/- whereas the plaintiff has put the value of the suit house only Rs. 2,00,000/- which is undervalued. He would further submit that at present the suit house is valued about to Rs. 40,00,000/- and the plaintiff is required to put the value of the suit house, as on the date of filing of the suit and valuation put by the plaintiff of the suit property in the suit is very less and thereby, the suit is suffered from the defects of undervaluation and it is not maintainable. He would further submit that the learned trial Court rejected the application of the defendant on the ground that the valuation put by the plaintiff on the plaint is acceptable and he is at liberty to put the valuation in the suit. He would further submit that the valuation of the suit is highly undervaluation and the suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of the plaint (Annexure-A/2), it transpires that the plaintiff has filed the suit for vacant possession and damages of the suit property which is the house shown in Schedule-A. The plaintiff has put the valuation of the suit house and claimed the vacant possession with 3 the pleading that the defendant is his licencee and on her request, he permitted her to reside over the suit property after death of the husband of the defendant. When the defendant has not vacated the suit property, despite repeated request, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. Merely because the plaintiff had purchased the suit house for a consideration of Rs. 15,61,000/- at an earlier point of time, it cannot be presumed that the market value of the property on the date of institution of the suit was also Rs. 15,61,000/- or more. The market value of immovable property is not static and may vary with the passage of time owing to several factors, such as location, development of the surrounding area, prevailing market conditions, demand and supply, nature of construction, condition and maintenance of the property, and other relevant circumstances. The value of the property may either appreciate substantially or depreciate due to neglect, deterioration, or other reasons. Therefore, the sale consideration mentioned in a previous sale deed cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the prevailing market value of the property. Since the determination of market value involves examination of factual aspects and appreciation of evidence, it ordinarily constitutes a mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated merely on the basis of the defendant's assertion in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Such disputed questions are required to be decided on the basis of evidence during the course of the trial. 6. It is well settled that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and, in the first instance, has the right to value the relief claimed in the suit in accordance with his estimation and the provisions governing court fees 4 and jurisdiction. The valuation disclosed in the plaint is ordinarily to be accepted unless it is shown to be arbitrary, demonstrably undervalued, or contrary to the statutory provisions. The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to adopt a particular valuation merely because he perceives the property to be of a higher value. Unless the Court finds that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff is patently incorrect or has been deliberately fixed to evade payment of the proper court fee or to confer jurisdiction upon a Court which otherwise lacks it, the plaintiff's valuation deserves acceptance. Where the question of market value is disputed and requires evidence, the same ordinarily cannot be adjudicated solely on the basis of the defendant's objection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 7. The objection raised by the defendants that the suit property was undervalued and the plaintiff is required to put the valuation of the suit property in accordance with the valuation of the sale deed of the suit house which in the opinion of this Court is requires evidence and the objection raised by the defendant is the actual dispute which can only be decided after framing the issues and leading evidence of the parties. After perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court, I do not find any perversity and jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision lacks merit liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika