1 2026:CGHC:17729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 101 of 2026 1 - Prabha Sahu W/o Shri Parmeshwar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Risali Madoda, Bhilai Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Pawan Sahu S/o Late Shri Panchuram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 27, Danteshwari Chowk, Charoda, Bhilai , District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Nutan Sahu D/o Late Shri Panchuram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Urla, Kumhari, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Sahu D/o Late Shri Panchuram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhighouri, Tahsil Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Mongra Sahu D/o Late Shri Panchuram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Urla, Kumari Tahsil Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Hemlata Sahu D/o Late Shri Panchuram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Ramnagar, Near Muktidham Supela Bhilai , District- Durg (C.G.) 6 - Mina Sahu D/o Late Shri Panchuram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 27, Danteshwari Chowk Charoda, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Applicant : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/04/2026 1. The present civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/defendant No.1 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Judge, Durg to the Court of I Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit Class-A No.153-A/2025, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff has instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title over the suit property situated at Village Nawagaon, Tahsil Bori, District Durg, comprising several khasra numbers admeasuring total area of about 1.70 hectares. The plaintiff has claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the said property on the basis of an alleged partition deed. Upon receipt of summons, the present applicant/defendant No.1 appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contending that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose a cause of action and is based on suppression of material facts. It was specifically contended that the suit property is subject matter of a Will dated 29.08.2016 3 executed in favour of multiple beneficiaries, including the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership over the entire property. It was further contended that the plaintiff has deliberately not disclosed the existence of the said Will and has attempted to mislead the Court. It was also argued that the nature of dispute is essentially one of partition, and without proper adjudication of shares and rights, the suit for declaration is not maintainable. The plaintiff/respondent filed a reply to the said application denying the knowledge of the Will and asserting that the claim of the defendant involves disputed questions of fact which require evidence. It was submitted that the plaint discloses a clear cause of action and cannot be rejected at the threshold. The learned trial Court, after considering the rival submissions, rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC holding that the issues raised by the defendant cannot be adjudicated at the preliminary stage and require trial. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has suppressed the existence of a registered Will dated 29.08.2016, which materially affects the claim made in the plaint. It is further submitted that the 4 Will clearly demonstrates that the property was intended to be devolved upon multiple beneficiaries, and therefore, the claim of exclusive ownership by the plaintiff is ex facie untenable and does not disclose a valid cause of action. Learned counsel argues that the plaintiff, by not disclosing the Will, has approached the Court with unclean hands, and such plaint deserves to be rejected at the threshold. It is also contended that the dispute essentially relates to partition of property, and without seeking appropriate relief before the competent forum, the present suit for declaration is not maintainable. Hence, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have carefully perused the record. 5. The scope and ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is well settled. For the purpose of deciding an application under the said provision, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with it. The defence raised by the defendant or disputed questions of fact cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. 6. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of an alleged partition deed. The plaint, on its face, discloses a cause of action and the basis of the claim. The objection raised by the applicant/defendant is founded 5 upon the existence of a Will dated 29.08.2016 and the allegation of suppression of material facts. However, the existence, validity and effect of the said Will are matters which are seriously disputed and can only be adjudicated upon after the parties lead evidence before the trial Court. Similarly, the contention that the suit is essentially one for partition and not maintainable in its present form is also a matter which requires examination on merits and cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint at the threshold. 7. The learned trial Court, after considering the submissions of the parties, has rightly held that the issues raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided without evidence. It has further been held that since the suit is for declaration of title and involves questions relating to partition and competing rights over the property, the same is required to be adjudicated by the trial Court after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 8. Upon careful consideration, this Court finds itself in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court, after considering the submissions of the parties, has rightly held that since the suit was for partition and 6 declaration of title, the same is required to be adjudicated only by the trial Court upon appreciation of evidence, and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present civil revision. Accordingly, the civil revision is hereby dismissed, affirming the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge