1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 8 of 2026 1 - Santoolal Manhar S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Manhar Aged About 65 Years R/o Near Sai Anandam Vivah Bhawan, Ameri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Ajay Singh S/o Late Ramchandra Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Gulmohar Park, Uslapur, Near Railway Station, Mangla, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mobile No. 9340480181 2 - Meena Rani Manhar D/o Santoolal Manhar Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Sai Anandam Vivah Bhawan, Ameri, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Vikesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Kududand, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant:- Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08.01.2026 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Fourth Additional Judge to VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2025, whereby the application filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A. No. 2/2025) has been illegally, arbitrarily, and erroneously dismissed, the present revision petition is being preferred. 2. Following prayed has been made by way of this revision petition:- “a) Allow the present Civil Revision Petition and be pleased to exercise its revisional and/or supervisory jurisdiction; b) Set aside and quash the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Court of the Fourth Additional Judge, to the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2025, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed; c) Allow I.A. No. 2/2025 filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and consequently reject the plaint, holding the suit to be barred by law, inter alia, under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; d) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-Applicant No. 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 29-A/2025 before the Court of the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). The suit was filed seeking declarations that the alleged agreement to sell dated 18.04.2022 is valid and enforceable, claiming an alleged preferential/pre-emptive right over the suit land, and seeking to declare the registered Gift Deed dated 22.05.2022 executed in favour of Defendant No. 2 and the registered Sale Deed dated 14.07.2023 executed in favour of Defendant No. 3 as illegal, void, inoperative and non-binding, along with a decree of permanent injunction. Despite the plaint itself admitting execution of registered conveyance deeds and transfer of title in favour of third parties, Non-Applicant No. 1 deliberately omitted to seek the mandatory and consequential reliefs of possession and specific performance. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, therefore, filed I.A. No. 2/2025 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, disclosed no legally enforceable cause of action in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and was a cleverly drafted abuse of the process of the Court. However, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 29.09.2025, dismissed the said application holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and involved disputed questions of fact. The said order is ex facie 4 illegal, suffers from patent jurisdictional infirmity, and has necessitated the filing of the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been illegally dismissed by the trial court without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner specifically pleaded that the suit and the relief claimed therein are not in accordance with law and no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. It is further stated that neither has the suit been filed for specific performance of contract nor has the requisite ad valorem court fee been affixed. On both counts, the suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error and has been passed after due consideration of the pleadings and material available on record. It is submitted that the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rightly dismissed as the issues raised by the petitioner involve mixed questions of law and fact, which can only be adjudicated after evidence is led. Therefore, no interference by this Hon’ble Court is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the plaint as well as impugned order. 5 7. From a perusal of the plaint, it appears that though the plaintiff, in sum and substance, seeks to enforce the agreement dated 18.04.2024, he has not prayed for such relief in clear and unequivocal terms. It is further evident that the plaintiff has not affixed the requisite ad valorem court fee payable with reference to the agreement dated 18.04.2024, despite the nature of the relief claimed. In view of the aforesaid aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue relating to the nature of the relief claimed and the sufficiency of court fee goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, requires adjudication as a preliminary issue. 8. Accordingly, the learned trial court is directed to frame a preliminary issue in this regard and to direct the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee in accordance with the relief prayed for in the plaint. In the event the plaintiff fails to deposit the ad valorem court fee as directed, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to reject the plaint in accordance with law. It is expected that the learned trial court shall frame the necessary issues and decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha