2025:CGHC:38790 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 85 of 2024

1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Luduram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Pawani, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh.

(Defendant)

... Revisioner versus

1 - Luduram S/o Mohitram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village And Post - Pawani, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh.

(Plaintiffs)

2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Revisioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate along with Ms. Shivani Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

05/08/2025

1. The revisioner / defendant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed in a suit filed for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction.

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff, Luduram, initially filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and a decree of perpetual injunction against the present Digitally signed by revisioner, Santosh Kumar, and another defendant, Badrika Mahinag.

SHAYNA KADRI The suit was filed before the learned trial Court. Santosh Kumar entered appearance after due service of notice and submitted his written statement, contesting the averments of the plaint. The trial Court adjudicated the matter on merits and ultimately decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. Following the favourable decree, the respondent initiated execution proceedings. However, during the course of execution, it came to light that the decree was obtained in respect of a different survey number that was not the subject matter of dispute. Specifically, it was found that there was no house situated on the survey number mentioned in the decree (Survey No. 1516), leading to the failure of the execution proceedings. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second suit, this time claiming that the actual disputed house was situated on Survey No. 2991/1, measuring 0.018 hectares, located in Village Pawani, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). In this fresh suit, the respondent sought the same reliefs as in the previous one. Upon service of notice in the second suit, the revisioner Santosh Kumar appeared and discovered that the new suit involved the same house, the same parties, and the same cause of action as the earlier one. Consequently, he filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), raising objections to the maintainability of the suit on grounds including the principle of res judicata. The plaintiff (respondent) submitted a reply to this application on 14/12/2023. The learned trial Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by order dated 04/04/2024. The said order is impugned in the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that the respondent/plaintiff had earlier instituted Civil Suit No. 07A/2017 before the learned Trial Court, seeking a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and a decree of perpetual injunction with respect to a house alleged to be situated on Survey No. 1516, measuring 0.032 hectares. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent, and the decree was passed against the present Revisioner and another defendant, Badrika Mahinag. However, during the execution proceedings of the said decree, it became apparent that the subject house was not situated on Survey No. 1516, as claimed in the earlier suit, but rather on Survey No. 2991/1, measuring 0.018 hectares. As a result, the decree could not b