1 CGHC010339052026 2026:CGHC:38982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 199 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar Goyal S/o Late Bhagwandas Goyal Aged About 40 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village, Dudhasi, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant / Defendant No. 17 versus 1 - Durgashankar Mishra S/o Late Shivdeen Mishra Aged About 64 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. …. Plaintiff 2 - Sumitra @ Sunita D/o Mangaldeen Kewat Aged About 50 Years Caste Kewat, Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 3 - Krishnaram S/o Shri Mangaldeen Aged About 45 Years Caste Kewat, R/o Village Janakpur, Bhatthipara, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kashish S/o Surajlal Aged About 25 Years Caste Ahirwar, R/o Village Madisarai, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shyamlal S/o Mangaldeen Aged About 33 Years Caste Kewat, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kalpana D/o Mangaldeen Aged About 58 Years W/o Premlal, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 7 - Kusum Bai D/o Bihari Aged About 53 Years Caste Kewat, R/o Village Janakpur, Bhatthipara, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 8 - Prachi D/o Madhavprasad Aged About 13 Years Caste Kewat, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh, Minor Through Brother 2 Shivprasad. 9 - Sunnat B W/o Mohammad Kalim Aged About 53 Years Caste Rangrez (Chhipa), Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 10 - Gudda Ram Uike S/o Chhottan Aged About 45 Years Caste Gond, R/o Mehdauli, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 11 - Vicky Jagwani S/o Kanhaiyalal Jagwani Aged About 41 Years Caste Sindhi, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 12 - Farid Khan S/o Naseem Ahmad Aged About 19 Years Caste Musalman, R/o Village Janakpur, Near Bus Stand, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 13 - Ravi Pratap Singh S/o Chhatrapal Baland Aged About 25 Years Caste Baland, R/o Village Chuel, Tehsil Kotadol, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 14 - Samita Baland W/o Hira Singh Baland Aged About 27 Years Caste Baland, R/o Village Aktwar, Tehsil Kotadol, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 15 - Budan Yadav S/o Sitasharan Yadav Aged About 36 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Village Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 16 - Nita Yadav W/o Shri Surajbhan Yadav Aged About 36 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Village Bhawarkhoh, P.S. Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. 17 - Atul Singh S/o Ramakant Singh Aged About 25 Years Caste Kshatriya, R/o Village Aktwar, P.S. Janakpur, Tehsil Bharatpur, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. …….Defendants No. 1 to 16/Resp. No. 2 to 17 18 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Distt. M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No. 18 : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer. 3 (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 03/09/2026 Heard. 1. This civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) challenging the order dated 22.06.2026 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Janakpur, District Koria in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2024 (Durgashankar Mishra Vs. Sumitra and others) whereby an application filed by the applicant / defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 of the CPC, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant / defendant submits that respondent No. 1 /plaintiff – Durgashankar Mishra has instituted a civil suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction against the applicant/defendant on the ground that Late Mangaldeen Kewat (ancestor of Respondent Nos. 2 to 8/Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 ) had executed an Agreement to Sell dated 05.11.2011 in respect of the subject land and had received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, respondent No. 1/plaintiff has sought the aforesaid reliefs against the applicant /defendant. However, as is evident from the death certificate issued by the competent authority, Late Mangaldeen Kewat had expired on 07.04.2011, i.e., nearly seven months prior to the alleged execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 05.11.2011. Thus, on the date of the alleged agreement, Late Mangaldeen Kewat was no longer alive and, therefore, could not have executed the said Agreement to Sell or received any consideration thereunder. As such, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in favour of Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff so as to maintain the present civil suit. Hence, applicant / defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 of the CPC 4 (Annexure A-6) for rejection of the plaint, but the same has been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 22.06.2026 by recording a finding that the genuineness and authenticity of the death certificate of Late Mangaldeen Kewat filed by the applicant/defendant can be determined only after recording the evidence of the parties. However, the objection raised by the Applicant/Defendant is based upon a death certificate issued by the competent authority, hence, he prays that impugned order may be set aside and civil suit may be rejected by allowing application filed by the applicant / defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 of the CPC. 3. The applicant/defendant has filed a photocopy of the civil suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction on the basis of the alleged agreement to sell dated 05.11.2011, allegedly executed by late Mangaldeen Kewat in respect of the subject land. If Mangaldeen Kewat had died prior to the execution of the alleged agreement to sell, the death certificate relied upon by the applicant/defendant would, of course, be a relevant document; however, the genuineness and evidentiary value of the said document can be determined only after recording the evidence of the parties. Therefore, the objection raised by the applicant/defendant cannot be considered or adjudicated upon at this stage, as it is a settled proposition of law that an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC can be decided only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. As per the plaint filed by Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff, late Mangaldeen Kewat had received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff in respect of the subject land and had executed an Agreement to Sell dated 05.11.2011 in favour of Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others1 while considering the various judgments on the issue, has held in paragraph 25 as under:— 1 (2021) 9 SCC 99 5 “25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows: 25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to. 25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application. 25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the "previous suit" is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit. 25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the "previous suit", such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.” 5. A perusal of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that, for determining whether the present suit is barred by any law, the Court is required to examine, whether Mangaldeen Kewat ( the ancestor of Respondent Nos. 2 to 8/Defendant Nos. 1 to 7) was alive at the relevant point of time. The said issue is essentially a question of fact, the determination of which would require appreciation of the evidence to be adduced by the respective parties. Accordingly, such a question cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage without affording the parties a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. 6 6. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is rejected at the motion stage itself. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.09.07 11:53:12 +0530