1 2026:CGHC:25888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 140 of 2026 1 - Mohammad Wahab Khan S/o Mohammad Kasam Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mohla, Tahsil Mohla, Distt. Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohammad Salim Khan S/o Mohammad Kasam Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mohla, Tahsil Mohla, Distt. Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kamrun Nisha W/o Mohammad Kasam Khan Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mohla, Tahsil Mohla, Distt. Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - Sajeda Bano D/o Rasul Khan Aged About 55 Years By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Ambagarh Chowki, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Najera Bano D/o Rasul Khan Aged About 53 Years By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Mohla, Tahsil Mohla, Distt. Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aveda Bano D/o Rasul Khan Aged About 51 Years By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Bhilai, Tahsil Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.06.27 10:41:35 +0530 2 For Applicants For State/Resp. No.4 : : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present revision has been preferred by the applicants challenging the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), whereby an application filed by the applicants (defendants therein) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) has been rejected. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 (plaintiffs therein) filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition and possession over the suit property described in the plaint. The plaintiffs valued the relief of declaration of title at Rs.3000/-, partition at Rs.2000/- and possession at Rs.2000/-, aggregating to Rs.7000/-, and affixed court fees amounting to Rs.700/-. 4. The applicants (defendants therein) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the civil suit on the ground of improper valuation and insufficiency of court fees valued/affixed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 (plaintiffs therein). It was 3 contended that, having regard to the reliefs claimed by plaintiffs, the suit ought to have been valued as per Section 7 (vi-a) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 in respect of the house and Badi, whose market value was stated to exceed Rs.50 lakhs. As such, it was asserted that the court fees paid were inadequate and the suit was liable to be rejected. 5. A reply to the said application was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 (plaintiffs therein). 6. After considering the contentions of both parties, learned trial Court rejected the application filed by applicants-defendants, holding that the issues relating to valuation of the suit and affixing court fee are mixed questions of law and fact, which can be decided on merits after framing issues. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants-defendants submits that, in respect of some portion of the suit land, the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ plaintiffs have sought declaration of absolute title, whereas in respect of some portion of the land, they have claimed only some shares. He further submits that the market value of the house situated on Khasra No.55/6, Rakba 0.14 acres along with Badi, exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. However, no valuation has been made in respect of the house and Badi. He next submits that the plaintiffs have neither specifically pleaded the valuation of the suit property, including house and Badi and house, nor affixed adequate court fees for the relief of partition. Hence, learned counsel prays that 4 the impugned order may be set aside and the civil suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ plaintiffs may be rejected. 8. Perusal of plaint shows that neither plaintiffs have specifically pleaded separate valuations for each item of the suit property nor for each relief claimed by them. Nevertheless, they have valued the reliefs of declaration title, partition and possession to the tune of Rs.3000/-, 2000/- & 2000/- respectively, and have paid a total court fee of Rs.700/-. 9. During the course of the submissions, when a specific question was posed to the learned counsel for the applicants as to how the valuation made by respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs and court fees affixed by them in the plaint were inadequate, he could not satisfy the Court in this regard. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the applicants-defendants have stated that the market value of the house situated on the suit land bearing Khasra No.55/6, Rakba 0.14 acres, along with the Badi, was more than Rs.50 lakhs. However, no particulars regarding the nature, dimensions, structure, number of floors, rooms, or other relevant details of the house were provided. Therefore, only on the basis of such vague statement, it cannot be held that the market value of the suit house and Badi exceeds Rs.50 lakhs. 10. In the case of Tara Devi vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj and another, (1987) 4 SCC 69, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and is entitled to value 5 the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, unless such valuation is found to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable or illusory. In the present case, the applicants-defendants have not pleaded in their application that the valuation of the suit made by plaintiffs in respect of reliefs is wholly arbitrary or unreasonable, nor have they demonstrated that the court fees affixed are completely inadequate. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the issues relating to valuation of the suit and adequacy of court fees involve mixed questions of law and fact, which can be decided adequately only after examining the evidence adduce by the parties. Consequently, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the present civil revision is dismissed at motion stage. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar