1 2026:CGHC:7595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 49 of 2026 1 - Suresh Chandra Pandey S/o Late Gajanand Pandey Aged About 62 Years R/o Bangalipara Sarkanda, Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defandant No. 1) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Dayanand Paswan S/o Late Sushil Paswan Aged About 58 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar, Tifra Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Call for the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court and set-aside the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Learned 10th District Judge Bilaspur, (C.G.) in the civil suit no. 107-A/2021 (at present a new civil suit no. 88-A/2025) and allow the application of Applicant/Defendant no.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and reject the plaint presented by the plaintiff/Respondent no 1 in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1/Plaintiff instituted a civil suit alleging, inter alia, that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the Applicant/Defendant No. 1, which was to be repaid within two months, however, being engaged in the business of real estate and owing to certain unforeseen circumstances, he could not repay the said amount within the stipulated period. It is further averred that during the intervening period, the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff undertook a project involving purchase of land bearing Khasra Nos. 164/1 and 164/25 admeasuring 5.07 acres, P.H. No. 42, situated at Village Ratanpur, owned by Rameshwer Prasad Patanwar and Harish Patanwar, for the purpose of developing farmhouses by dividing the land into plots of 14 dismil each. For acquisition and development of the said land, an amount of Rs. 40,85,000/- was arranged from various persons, out of which Rs. 25,32,000/- was paid to the landowners and the remaining Rs. 15,32,000/- was utilized 3 towards development expenses. It is alleged that upon learning of the said project, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 demanded repayment of his loan and, as the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff was unable to repay the same, he was allegedly pressurized to have the sale deed of the said land executed in favour of the Applicant/Defendant No. 1. Consequently, under such alleged pressure, the original landowners executed a sale deed dated 09.10.2018 in favour of the Applicant/Defendant No. 1, along with an agreement between the parties stipulating that upon full repayment of the loan amount, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 would execute a sale deed in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff or his nominee. Subsequently, when the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff requested execution of a sale deed in favour of a third party, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 refused, leading to allegations in the plaint that the sale deed dated 09.10.2018 was fraudulently executed in favour of the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 without payment of sale consideration by him, despite the consideration having allegedly been paid by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, a declaration was sought that the said sale deed is non est in the eyes of law and that the Plaintiff be declared bhumiswami of the suit land, with the agreement and sale deeds. During pendency of the suit, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the suit is barred by law, discloses no cause of action, and is improperly valued, and 4 prayed for rejection of the plaint, however, by order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 107-A/2021 by the learned 10th District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), the application was rejected on the ground that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered and their truthfulness cannot be examined at that stage, and that the plaint on its face discloses a cause of action involving allegations of a conditional transaction, possession, repayment efforts, and interference by the Defendant, the issues of limitation being mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence. The learned Court further observed that although the suit was valued at Rs. 25,53,000/- with appropriate court fees paid, and the court of the Additional District Judge had pecuniary jurisdiction only in respect of suits valued between Rs. 70,00,000/- and Rs. 80,00,000/-, the proper course would be return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Rule 10A CPC for presentation before the competent court rather than rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, accordingly, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been illegally and mechanically rejected by the learned trial Court without due consideration of the specific grounds urged therein. It is contended that, inter alia, relief No. 1 sought by the plaintiff—namely, a declaration of title by declaring the alleged 5 sale deed dated 09.10.2018 as null and void—is wholly misconceived and untenable in law, as no sale deed was ever executed on the said date, rather, only an agreement to sell was executed by the opposite party. In such circumstances, the relief of declaration as framed is inherently unsustainable and cannot be granted even upon completion of trial. It is further argued that the plaint does not disclose any valid cause of action and, even if the averments in the plaint are taken at their face value, the appropriate remedy available to the plaintiff, in view of the alleged payment of sale consideration, would be a suit for specific performance and not a suit for declaration of title. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria and Others v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 641, to contend that a meaningful reading of the plaint demonstrates that the suit is barred by law and liable to be rejected at the threshold. However, the learned trial Court, instead of adjudicating the objections raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has erroneously transferred the suit to another Court on the purported ground that the pecuniary valuation of the suit falls below the statutory minimum threshold of Rs. 70 lakhs. It is submitted that under the relevant Civil Courts Act and Rules, both the Additional District Judge and the District Judge possess jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate suits of unlimited pecuniary value, and therefore the finding recorded by the Court below 6 regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is contrary to the statutory scheme and unsustainable in law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Bajoria and others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “18. Therefore, the question that will have to be considered is as to whether the reliefs as claimed in the plaint by the plaintiffs could be granted or not. We do not propose to do that exercise, inasmuch as the Division Bench of the High Court has elaborately considered the issue as to whether, applying the provisions of the said Act read with the aforesaid clauses in the Partnership Deed, the reliefs, as claimed in the plaint, could be granted or not. The relevant discussion by the High Court reads thus: (31) Let us take the prayers one by one. The first prayer is for a declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to the assets and properties of the said firm as the legal heirs of the original partners. It is trite law that the partners of a firm are entitled only to the profits of the firm and upon dissolution of the firm they are entitled to the surplus of the sale proceeds of the assets 7 and properties of the firm, if any, after meeting the liabilities of the firm, in the share agreed upon in the partnership deed. The partners do not have any right, title or interest in respect of the assets and properties of a firm so long as the firm is carrying on business. Hence, the plaintiffs as legal heirs of some of the original partners cannot maintain any claim in respect of the assets and properties of the said firm. Their prayer for declaration of co-ownership of the assets and properties of the said firm is not maintainable in law. The second prayer in the plaint is for a declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are entitled to represent the firm in all proceedings before the concerned authorities of the State of Bihar for the acquisition of its Bhagalpur land. The framing of this prayer shows that this is a consequential relief claimed by the plaintiffs which can only be granted if the first prayer is allowed. Since, in our opinion, prayer (a) of the plaint cannot be granted in law, prayer (b) also cannot be granted. Prayer (c) is also a consequential relief. Only if the plaintiffs were entitled to claim prayer (a), they could claim prayer (c). We are not 8 on whether or not the plaintiffs will succeed in obtaining prayer (a). According to us, the plaintiffs are not even entitled to pray for the first relief indicated above as the same cannot be granted under the law of the land. Consequently, prayer (c) also cannot be granted. Prayers (d) and (e) both pertain to dissolution of the firm. Prayer (e) is for a decree of dissolution and for winding up of the affairs of the firm. Prayer (d) is for full accounts of the firm for the purpose of its dissolution (emphasis is ours). However, it is settled law that only the partners of a firm can seek dissolution of the firm.Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not partners of the said firm. Sec. 39 of the Partnership Act provides that the dissolution of partnership between all the partners of a firm is called 'the dissolution of the firm'. Sec. 40 provides that a firm may be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with a contract between the partners. Sec. 41 provides for compulsory dissolution of a firm. Sec. 42 stipulates that happening of certain contingencies will cause dissolution of a firm but this is subject to contract between the partners. A partnership- at-will may be dissolved by any partner giving 9 notice in writing to the other partners of his intention to dissolve the firm, as provided in Sec. 43 of the Act. Sec. 44 empowers the Court to dissolve a firm on the grounds mentioned therein on a suit of a partner. Thus, it is clear that it is only a partner of a firm who can seek dissolution of the firm. The dissolution of a firm cannot be ordered by the court at the instance of a non- partner. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim dissolution of the said firm. Consequently, they are also not entitled to pray for accounts for the purpose of dissolution of the firm. (32) What should the Court do if it finds that even taking the averments in the plaint at face value, not one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint can be granted? Should the Court send the parties to trial? We think not. It will be an exercise in futility. It will be a waste of time, money and energy for both the plaintiffs and the defendants as well as unnecessary consumption of Court's time. It will not be fair to compel the defendants to go through the ordinarily long drawn process of trial of a suit at huge expense, not to speak of the anxiety and un-peace of mind caused by a litigation hanging over one's head like the Damocles's sword. No 10 purpose will be served by allowing the suit to proceed to trial since the prayers as framed cannot be allowed on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiffs have not prayed for leave to amend the plaint. When the court is of the view just by reading the plaint alone and assuming the averments made in the plaint to be correct that none of the reliefs claimed can be granted in law since the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim such reliefs, the Court should reject the plaint as disclosing no cause of action. The reliefs claimed in a plaint flow from and are the culmination of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint. The cause of action pleaded and the prayers made in a plaint are inextricably intertwined. In the present case, the cause of action pleaded and the reliefs claimed are not recognized by the law of the land. Such a suit should not be kept alive to go to trial..…" 21. We are in agreement with the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which, upon an elaborate scrutiny of the averments made in the plaint, the reliefs claimed therein, the provisions of the said Act and the clauses of the Partnership Deed, came to the conclusion that the reliefs as sought in the plaint, cannot be granted. 11 6. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, insofar as the other grounds raised by the defendant are concerned, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not empower the Court to adjudicate upon the merits of the controversy at this preliminary stage. The objections sought to be canvassed by the defendant—namely, that the suit allegedly pertains to a benami transaction, that it is not maintainable in the absence of a suit for specific performance, and that no cause of action is disclosed—are all matters which necessarily require proper pleadings, framing of issues, and appreciation of evidence, and therefore fall within the domain of the learned trial Court to be examined during the course of trial. The dismissal of the suit on such substantive grounds at the threshold would be impermissible in proceedings under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, with regard to the question of pecuniary jurisdiction, a perusal of the work distribution CG Civil Court Acts and Rules and relevant records indicates that the concerned Court is duly vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and try suits valued up to Rs. 25,53,000/-. In view of the aforesaid position, and considering the pecuniary valuation of the present suit, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order to the extent it holds otherwise, and to clarify that the concerned Court possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the suit in accordance with law. 12 7. The judgment cited in the case of Rajendra Bajoria (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 8. The effect and import of the present order shall be that the earlier instituted civil proceedings, being Civil Suit No. 107-A/2021, shall stand restored to its original file and number and be duly taken on record by the competent Court. The concerned Court is accordingly directed to proceed with the matter and adjudicate the suit strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and to dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with the established principles of justice and procedural requirements. 9. With this observation and direction, the revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat