Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:4214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 86 of 2020 1 - Dhanesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Balram Singh, Aged About 44 Years R/o Main Road Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh............Plaintiff, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Collector Of Stamp And District Registrar Tahsil Parisar Korba, Post And District Korba Chhattisgarh................Defendant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Registrar, Korba, Tahsil Parisar, Korba, Post And District Korba Chhattisgarh...............Defendant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner/Plaintiff For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate : Mr. Pramod Ramkete, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Korba in Civil Appeal No.09/2018 whereby the miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant No.1 and also challenged the notice issued -2- by defendant No.1 in the revenue proceeding bearing RRC Case No.05/A-16/2014-15 dated 29.09.2018. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendants under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the ‘CPC’) and also filed an application under Section 80(2) of the CPC showing urgency. 3. Learned Additional Civil Judge, Class-1 Korba (C.G.) in the unregistered civil suit vide order dated 02.11.2018 held that the suit is not maintainable according to the provisions of Section 257(h) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) and therefore, no order can be passed on the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 80(2) of the CPC. 4. Learned Trial Court rejected the application moved under Order 80(2) of the CPC and applying the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, rejected the plaint. 5. The petitioner/plaintiff preferred a miscellaneous appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Korba (C.G.) and the learned Court below dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.10.2019. The petitioner has challenged both orders by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Trial Court wrongly dismissed the suit while dealing with the provisions of Section 80(2) of CPC without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. It is further argued that no application was filed by the defendants with regard to the maintainability of the civil suit, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. It is also 3 contended that when the civil suit was barred according to the provisions of Section 257 of the Code of 1959, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to apply provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC particularly, when no such application was moved by the defendants. He would pray to quash the order dated 30.10.2019. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ramteke, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Verma. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9. Section 257 (h) of the Code of 1959 reads as under:- “S.257(h) any claim against the State Government connected with or arising out of, the collection of land revenue or the recovery of any sum which is recoverable as land revenue under this Code or any other enactment; 10.Admittedly, the petitioner had filed a civil suit. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.08.2009 after the registration of general power of attorney on 29.09.2018 for recovery of Rs.68390/-. According to the provisions of Section 257(h) of the Code of 1959, the exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred to the revenue authorities to decide the issue. 11.An application under Section 80(2) of the CPC was moved by the petitioner but while deciding the said application, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that as the civil suit is barred by law, therefore, the same is not maintainable. -4- 12.Learned Trial Court applying the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, rejected the plaint. 13.Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC is reproduced herein below for reference:- “Order 7 Rule 11(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;” 14.Section 2(2) of the CPC defines ‘decree’ which reads as under:- “Section 2(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within [* * *] section 144, but shall not include- (a)any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b)any order of dismissal for default.
Decision
Explanation .-A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;” A bare reading of Section 2(2) of the CPC would make it clear the term ‘decree’ means the determination of the rights of the parties or any of the matters in controversy in the suit which may either be preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within the meaning of Section 144 of CPC. 15.The civil suit filed by the plaintiff was finally concluded, therefore, 5 according to provisions of Section 2(2) of the CPC, it was a deemed decree as the plaint of the petitioner was rejected applying the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC and the bar contained in Section 257(h) of the Code of 1959. 16.Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the miscellaneous appeal preferred before the learned Court below was not maintainable at all. The learned Appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining such appeal which was not maintainable. As the appeal before the Court below was not maintainable, therefore, this petition against the order impugned is also not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised. Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge