Mungeli Chhattisgarh ( v. District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (

(Defendant No.1) 2 - Rohit Shukla S/o Chotelal Shukla Aged About 50 Years R/o Mahamai Ward, Ward No. 1, Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.2) ... Applicants versus 1 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Late Ramkhilavan Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Laxman Nagar Ward No. 26, Street No. 3, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No.1) 2 - Gulab Yadav S/o Late Ramkhilavan Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Laxman Nagar Ward No. 26, Street No. 3, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No. 2) 3 - Balbir Singh Saluja S/o Late Dilip Singh Saluja Aged About 58 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk, Torwa, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 3) 4 - Satpal Singh Chhabra S/o Gurucharan Singh Chhabra Aged About 50 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk, Torwa, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 4) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Not noticed 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board 01/05/2025 1 Heard. 2 The instant civil revision has been filed by the applicants/defendants No.1 & 2 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated

07.12.2024, passed by learned 5th District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. No. 11- A/2023, wherein, the application filed by the applicants herein under Order 7 Rule 11 R/w Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 3 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/ R-1 & 2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs 2,76,00,000/- against applicants herein Arvind Soni and Rohit Shukla on the basis of agreement dated 03/02/2022 and agreement dated 23/03/2022 for agricultural land. In which, by affixing Court fee of Rs 8,87,800/-, he sought relief for getting the said claim amount along with interest and expenses. 4 The applicants, as the defendants in that case, submitted an application under Order 07 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that according to the agreement, the suit land is situated in District Balodabazar and the agreement was executed in Mungeli District. But the plaintiffs/R-1 & 2 have not presented 3 the suit in the geographical jurisdiction of the said Courts but in the Court of Raipur.

The District Court of Raipur does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the case is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. 5 Plaintiffs/R-1 & 2 has clarified in the reply that he has presented the suit only for recovery of money and not for specific performance and compliance of agreement and the amount which he has requested to be recovered was paid through the bank account of Chhattisgarh State Rural Bank, Kharora, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh, hence Raipur Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. The objection raised by the applicants is not acceptable and he has also affixed court fee as per the relief of recovery of money. Therefore, the application of Order-7 Rule-11 Code of Civil Procedure should be dismissed. 6 Finding the above argument of plaintiffs/ R-1 & 2 correct, the trial Court passed an order on dated 07/12/2024 in civil suit number-11B/2023 Rajesh Yadav and ors. vs Arvind Soni and ors, rejecting the application of Order-7 Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been challenged in this revision.