1 2026:CGHC:7598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 53 of 2026 1 - Uma Sahu D/o Chandrabhan Sahu Aged About 34 Years By Caste- Teli, R/o Ward No. 17, Pghb Lic (C.G.) Housing Board, Padum Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No.3). 2 - Smt. Dalima W/o Ruplal Sahu Aged About 45 Years By Caste- Teli, R/o Ward No. 2, R/o Village- Charra, Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Defendant No.4). ...Applicants. versus 1 - Rajil Khan @ Rajik Khan S/o Late Basir Khan Aged About 45 Years By Caste- Musalman, R/o Risaipara Ward, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.). (plaintiff) 2 - Ashiya Begam W/o Late Basir Khan Aged About 68 Years By Caste- Musalman, R/o Risaipara Ward, In Front Of Gayatri Mandir, Tarang Kirana Store Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)(Defendant No.1) 3 - Abdul Gaffar S/o Mo. Safi Aged About 63 Years.(Defendant No.5) 4 - Mo. Akram S/o Mo. Safi Aged About 51 Years.(Defendant No.6) 5 - Mo. Ashraf S/o Mo. Safi Aged About 51 Years By Caste- Musalman. (Defendant No.7) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.17 11:15:34 +0530 2 Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are R/o Ward No. 12, Amapara Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.). 6 - Rijwan Khan S/o Late Basir Khan Aged About 40 Years By Caste- Musalman, R/o Risaipara Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Defendant No.8) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). (Defendant No.2) ... Respondents. For Applicants : Shri Kunal Das, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy AG. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Kurud, District Dhamtari C.G. in Civil Suit case No.3A/2017 by which, application preferred by the applicants/Defendant Nos.3 and 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction which discloses a clear cause of action on the face of the plaint and seeks substantive reliefs which require adjudication on evidence. Reply of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed by the sole plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1 admitted the new 3 facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the amended plaint on dated 24/09/2025 claiming new facts and circumstances and new prayer according to the monetary benefit then it become money recovery suit. Learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the applicants/Defendants Nos.3 and 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence this Revision. 3. Leaned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants/Defendants Nos.3 and 4 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been illegally dismissed by the concerned trial Court. He submits that earlier the plaintiff has valued the suit to the tune of Rs.6,000/-, which is not correct as from the plaint averments, it appears that award was passed to the tune of Rs.32,33,628/- as such, plaintiff should have valued the suit to the this tune and should have affixed the court fees accordingly, however, when application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint (suit) has been filed, the same has not been considered by the concerned trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that the issue of valuation of proper court fees shall be decided by the trial Court after framing of issues. 5. In the case at hand, the issue which has been raised by Defendant Nos.3 and 4/applicants is with regard to valuation of suit (plaint) and affixation of the court fees. The aforesaid issue cannot be adjudicated in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 4 CPC. For deciding the said issue, appropriate issues are required to be framed and thereafter, after considering the said issue while taking evidence, the same can be decided. Hence, the concerned trial Court is directed to frame preliminary issues in this respect as to whether the suit has been properly valued and whether proper court fees has been paid which be done after giving due opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and if it appears to the said Court that the suit is not properly valued and appropriate court fees has not been affixed and further that if it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court then the said Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Civil Revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash