Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 91 of 2025 • Rakesh Kumar Golcha S/o Rawalmal Golcha Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 2/4 Rishabh Nagar Durg, Tehsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 8) versus ... Applicant (Plaintiff No. 1 Since Died, Not Made a Party) 1 - Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Chingri, Tehsil And District Durg,
Legal Reasoning
2 - Surendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Aged About 49 Years R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 3) 3 - Dharamvir S/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Aged About 43 Years R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 4) 4 - Sushila D/o Chandrika Prasad Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Damri, Tehsil And District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 5) 5 - Satyavati D/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 6) 6 - Rukhmani D/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Aged About 44 Years R/o Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 7) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.09 18:07:35 +0530 2 7 - Preetpal Singh S/o Late Shri Sohendar Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 1) 8 - Smt. Swarn Kaur W/o Late Shri Sohendar Singh Aged About 73 Years R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2) 9 - Smt. Manjeet Kaur D/o Late Shri Sohendar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 3) 10 - Smt. Satinder Kaur D/o Late Shri Sohendar Kaur Aged About 49 Years R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 4) 11 - Smt. Harvinder Kaur D/o Late Shri Sohendar Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 5) 12 - Manish Sahu S/o Late Shri Mulchand Sahu Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Borsi Bhata, Ward No. 50, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 6A) 13 - Smt. Mantora Sahu W/o Late Shri Mulchand Sahu Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Borsi Bhata, Ward No. 50, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 6B), 14 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 7) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 14/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Justice Judgment On Board 09 / 04 /202 5 1 The instant civil revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging 3 the order passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fourth Additional Judge of the Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Case No. 135-A/2021, wherein, the application filed by the applicant herein under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 2 Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 have filed a Civil Suit on 05.07.2021 for declaration permanent injunction and possession against the defendants in respect of the property located in village Anda, Tehsil and District – Durg, having Kh. No. 87 area of 0.750 hectares, corresponding to the old Kh. No. 370, with an area of 1.86 hectares. Further, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs in the suit have sought the cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 24.02.1971, executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of the father of defendant Nos 1 to 5, declaring it to be illegal, void, and fraudulent. The plaintiffs’ father contends that the land was subsequently sold to defendant No. 6 and has prayed for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 28.02.2020, asserting that it is also void and not binding upon the plaintiff. 3 Further, the facts of the case are that earlier, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, was filed by defendant No. 6, stating that the plaintiffs had not 4 properly paid the Court fee in the plaint, and therefore, the suit should be dismissed. This application was subsequently rejected by the learned Court vide order dated 10.08.2021. Following this, a civil revision bearing No. CR 35 of 2021 was filed by defendant No. 6 against the rejection of the application before this Court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.05.2023. After the rejection of the application, defendant No. 8/applicant was added as a party to the suit on 13.02.2024. Subsequently, on 16.07.2024, defendant No. 8 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, asserting that the plaintiffs had not properly paid the Court fee as per the market value of the suit land. Thereafter, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 whereby the application filed by the applicant has been rejected. 4 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs had failed to pay the Court fee in accordance with the possession of the suit property in a material defect that goes to the root of the maintainability of the suit. By not adhering to the mandatory court fee requirement, the plaintiffs’ case 5 should have been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. He further submits that instead of considering the application on its merits, the learned trial Court relied on the earlier order dated 10.08.2021, which was not applicable in the present context, as the circumstances had changed with the addition of the applicant as a party. The learned trial Court failed to consider that defendant No. 8 was added as a party to the suit after the previous application was rejected. The new party had every right to raise issues concerning the maintainability of the suit, including the non-payment of proper court fees, and the court ought to have considered these factors in the fresh application. He also submits that the Court failed to provide adequate reasoning for rejecting the application under Order 7
Decision
Rule 11 of CPC. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the record. 6 Learned trial Court considering the facts of the suit held that it is well-established law that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is disposed of only by considering the pleadings of the plaint, and at the time of disposal of the plaint, the defence of the defendant is 6 not taken into consideration. Furthermore, it is held that from perusal of the case, it appears that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was submitted by defendant NO. 6, which has already been disposed of on 10.08.2021 and in the said order it has also been clearly mentioned by the then presiding officer that “the plaintiff has assessed the possession at 20 times the rent of the suit land i.e. Rs. 108/- and paid a court fee of Rs. 11, which is appropriate”. Therefore, on the above grounds, it is not appropriate to consider the same point again. Hence, the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 7 Taking into consideration the reasons recorded by the trial Court, this Court does not see any illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned, therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant Civil Revision. 8 Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant Revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal JUDGE H.L. Sahu