VISHAKHA NAFR BEOHAR Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR by VISHAKHA BEOHAR CR No. 29 of 2023

1 - Aftab Alam S/o Mohd. Moinddin Aged About 60 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Temporary Address- Village Sipkona, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.01)

... Applicant versus

1 - Chamaar Rai S/o Samaylal Sahu Aged About 73 Years Caste Sahu, Occupation Kastkari, R/o Village Sipkona, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) 2 - Jeevanrakhan S/o Kushal Aged About 65 Years Caste Sahu, R/o Bhatagaon, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Defendant No.02) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.03) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner:- Mr. Sameer Rigri, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- None.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

28.11.2025

1. The present civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2021, whereby the Court below has illegally rejected the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court has erroneously held that the principle of res judicata is inapplicable on the premise that the question of ownership of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 968 was not finally adjudicated in the earlier civil suit, Suit No. 137-A/2011, and therefore the subsequent civil suit is not barred.

2. Following prayed has been made by way of this revision petition:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit no. 21- A/2021 and further be pleased to declare the civil suit as bar and not tenable in the present form, in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed Civil Suit No. 21-A/2021 before the Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 281/1 (0.23 ha.) and 968 (0.46 ha.), situated at Village Sipkona, asserting that his name is recorded in the revenue records and that he had purchased Khasra No. 968 through a registered sale deed dated 23.03.1988 from Shyamkishore Agrawal, after which mutation was carried out and he remained in peaceful possession until the petitioner/defendant allegedly encroached upon the land, as revealed during fresh demarcation proceedings; his application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was rejected, giving rise to the cause of action for filing the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the earlier decision in Civil Suit No. 137-A/2011; however, the plaintiff filed objections and the trial Court, vide order dated 20.12.2022, rejected the petitioner’s application holding that ownership of Khasra No. 968 was not decided earlier and therefore res judicata was not applicable, which order is impugned as being illegal, erroneous and contrary to law.

4. Mr. Sameer Rigri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/defendant No. 1 submits that the impugned order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is illegal and contrary to law. The Trial Court erred in holding that the ownership of Khasra No. 968 was not decided in the earli