The rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires a focus solely on the averments in the plaint, not on the defendant's defenses or mixed questions of law and fact.

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. By way of this civil revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:-

“The applicant, therefore, humbly prays that the Hon'ble court may kindly be please to call the entire record and further to set aside the order dated 28/4/25 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Class, Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa In Civil Suit No. 18 A/2020, and suit filed by the respondents may kindly be please to dismiss with cost in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell, are that, the applicant, Ratanlal, is the duly appointed Kotwar of Village Pota, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, and has been in lawful and continuous possession of 15.49 acres of Government service land (Seva Bhoomi) since 2001, comprising Khasra Nos. 128/1, 558, 598, 637, and 640, recorded in his name in Column 23 of the revenue records, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The land was transferred to him following the resignation of the former Kotwar, Bedram, in 2000. Subsequently, Bedram and his son Chandrika Singh challenged the applicant’s possession through multiple writ petitions, all of which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, affirming the applicant’s lawful possession. Despite liberty granted in 2012 to file a civil suit, no such suit was filed during Bedram's lifetime or thereafter by Chandrika Singh. In 2025, a distant relative, non-applicant No. 2, a descendant of Bedram’s brother, initiated mutation proceedings claiming ownership based on alleged ancestral possession. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the claim, citing previous court decisions and revenue entries. Non-applicant No. 2 then filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, challenging the SDO’s order. The applicant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of cause of action, limitation, res judicata, non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC, and abuse of process. However, the trial court rejected the application on April 28, 2025, without addressing key legal issues raised. The matter is now pending for further proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the learned trial court, is bad in law, suffers from material irregularity, and deserves to be set aside. The trial court erred in rejecting the applicant’s well- founded application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, without considering the substantial legal grounds raised therein. It is submitted that the plaint discloses no cause of action as required under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC. The suit land is Government service land (Seva Bhoomi) allotted to the petitioner in his official capacity as Kotwar, and the respondent has failed to produce any ownership document or legal right to the suit property. The vague and unsubstantiated claim of historical possession is irrelevant and insufficient to maintain a suit for declaration and injunction. It is further submitted that the suit is barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the following grounds: (i) No notice under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the State of Chhattisgarh, which is a necessary party, rendering the suit void ab initio; (ii) The suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the right to sue, if any, accrued in 2012 following the dismissal of Writ Appeal No. 82/08, but the present suit has been filed after 11 years without any explanation; and (iii) The suit is further barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC, as the iss