1 2026:CGHC:8184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 55 of 2026 1 - Dameshwar Prasad Yadav S/o Late Khelansingh Aged About 61 Years Assistant Director, Ultratech Cement Limited (Unit Ravan Cements Works), Registered Office- B Wing, Ahura Centre, 2nd Floor, Mahakali, Cewers Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra, Local Office Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), R/o Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. (Correct Name, Details And Address Mentioned) 2 - Vinay Sharad Chitale S/o Sharad Chandra Chitale Aged About 51 Years (F H Mines), Ultratech Cement Limited (Unit Ravan Cements Works), Registered Office- B Wing, Ahura Centre, 2nd Floor, Mahakali, Cewers Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra, Local Office Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), R/o Grasim Vihar, Ravan, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. (Correct Name, Details And Address Mentioned) ... Applicants versus 1 - Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Rajauram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Sarseni, P.H. No.- 01, R.N.M.- Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Rajauram Verma S/o Late Ramsingh Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Ward No. - 3, Gulmohar, Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Vinod Kumar Verma S/o Rajauram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Ward No.- 3, Gulmohar, Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.17 11:11:21 +0530 2 4 - Shrimati Gomti Verma D/o Rajauram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Ward No.- 3, Gulmohar, Devsundra, Tehsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State/Non-applicant No.5 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. By filing the present civil revision, the applicants have assailed the order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A-5) passed by the learned Second Additional District and Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, whereby the application preferred by them under Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act and Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned trial Court is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has sought multifarious reliefs, including declaration of title, permanent injunction, confirmation of possession and declaration of registered sale deed dated 09.05.2024, executed in favour of the defendant No.4 and 5 for a consideration of Rs.36,32,219/-, as 3 null and void, yet has not valued the suit in accordance with the market value of the property nor paid ad valorem court fee as mandatorily required under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act and Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. 3. It is further submitted that from a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff claims title through his father, who is the executant of the sale deed in favour of the applicants. Therefore, having stepped into the shoes of his father and claiming right through him, the plaintiff cannot avoid payment of ad valorem court fee by cleverly couching the relief as one for declaration that the sale deed is null and void. In substance, the relief sought is one of cancellation of a registered sale deed, and the court fee is required to be computed on the consideration mentioned therein. 4. Learned counsel further submits that deficiency of court fee is one of the specific grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and when such defect is apparent on the face of the plaint, the learned trial Court was obligated to adjudicate the same at the threshold instead of deferring the issue to a later stage of the suit. The finding of the learned trial Court that the issue of deficit court fee could be made good at a subsequent stage, without examining the mandatory provisions governing valuation, reflects non-application of mind. It is lastly submitted that the plaint, on a plain and meaningful reading, does 4 not disclose a clear cause of action and the suit appears to be vexatious and barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the applicants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC deserves to be set aside and the plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant No.5 supports the impugned order and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that the plaintiff is not a signatory to the sale deed dated 09.05.2024 and, therefore, is not required to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned therein. It is further submitted that the question of proper valuation and sufficiency of court fee is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be adjudicated during the course of trial, and at this preliminary stage the plaint cannot be rejected. Hence, the present revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents along with this civil revision. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors, (2021) 9 SC 99, this Court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the court held: 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." (emphasis supplied) Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant No. 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a 6 suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser or not need to be examined in detail. This Court has held that such circumstances require an in-depth examination of the previous decree, and its impact on the second suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint. As held by this Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551, identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023, this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows: 5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. 6. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment 7 of the Appellate Courts. Therefore, we make it clear that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on merits.” 10. From the order passed by the Trial Court it is apparent that there is neither consideration nor analysis of the case set up by the appellant in plaint. Further, the Trial Court questioned the legality of plaintiff’s action on the ground that, “he did not raise any objection regarding the decree passed in O.S. No. 298/96. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the plea of fraud raised by the 1 st respondent is not acceptable one.” With this view of the matter, the Trial Court rejected the objection of the appellant to the applicability of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC by holding; “12. The respondents counsel submitted that such a type of question cannot be decided as preliminary issue. In support of his contention. They have filed our Hon'ble court judgment 2009(4) LW 432, and 2007 A.L.W 580, 2000(3) MLJ 342,2002(1)LW 398. But those are dealing with regarding court fees. But as far as the case on hand is concerned. It is not regarding court fees. Therefore the above said citations is not apply to this suit. For the above said reasons and explanations. The petition is allowed. No cost.” 11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. The 8 appellant’s revision under Article 227 was similarly dismissed by the High Court holding that the decision of the Trial Court does not warrant interference. 12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96 dated 29.07.1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not have been decided under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief. 13. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court in CRP (PD) No. 1454 of 2014 dated 20.03.2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Portonovo to its original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. 14. While concluding, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the grounds raised by the defendants, including those relating to res judicata are kept open for final determination.” 9 8. It is a settled principle of law that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered. Furthermore, it is well settled that for considering the question of res judicata, the pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence led by the parties are required to be examined, which has not been done in the present case. 9. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra), this Court is required to examine whether the learned trial Court, while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has confined its consideration strictly to the averments made in the plaint. It is well settled that at this stage, the Court cannot adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact nor can it examine the defence set up by the defendants. In the present case, the applicants/defendant No.4 and 5 have sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has sought declaration of the registered sale deed dated 09.05.2024 executed in their favour for a consideration of Rs.36,32,219/- as null and void, along with consequential reliefs, without paying ad valorem court fee on the said consideration in terms of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act and Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. However, whether the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration and whether the suit has been properly valued are issues which cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of the defence raised by the applicants. 10 10. The learned trial Court, upon perusal of the plaint, has held that the issue regarding sufficiency of court fee and proper valuation can be examined at an appropriate stage of the suit and cannot form the sole basis for rejection of the plaint at the threshold. The question as to whether the plaintiff, who claims title on the basis of an alleged prior oral partition and challenges the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 and 5, is required to seek cancellation of the sale deed by paying ad valorem court fee, involves determination of the nature of relief claimed and the capacity in which the plaintiff challenges the document. Such determination may require framing of issues and appreciation of evidence. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. However, it is clarified that all contentions raised by the applicants/defendant No.4 and 5 with regard to improper valuation of the suit, alleged insufficiency of court fee, and the nature of relief claimed by the plaintiff shall remain open. The concerned trial Court is directed to frame a specific issue with regard to proper valuation of the suit and sufficiency of court fee payable in respect of the relief seeking declaration of the sale deed dated 09.05.2024 as null and void, and decide the same in accordance with law. 11 12. It is further clarified that the present order shall not come in the way of the trial Court in deciding such issue independently on its own merits, and it shall be open to the concerned trial Court to adjudicate the said issue after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the civil revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh