Issues regarding court fee valuation and statutory jurisdictional bars may not always warrant rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but should be treated as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC for early adjudication to avoid protraction of trial.

Order on Board

02.03.2026

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. By filing the present Civil Revision, the applicants have assailed the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the Court of 6th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 201A/2025, whereby the application preferred by the applicants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave jurisdictional error and material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by dismissing the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that a meaningful and not merely formal reading of the plaint would clearly demonstrate that the suit, as framed, is barred by law and does not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action. According to learned counsel, the pleadings in the plaint unequivocally reveal that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs substantially relates to identification of the suit property on the basis of four-sided boundaries and alleged encroachment founded upon boundary description in the sale deed, which in essence is a dispute pertaining to demarcation and boundary determination.

4. Elaborating further, learned counsel submits that such questions squarely fall within the ambit of “any question relating to the demarcation or placement of boundary marks” under Chapter X of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and are specifically barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by virtue of Section 257(g) of the Code. It is urged that where a statute expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and provides a special mechanism before the revenue authorities for adjudication of such disputes, the Civil Court cannot assume jurisdiction indirectly by entertaining a suit camouflaged as one for declaration and injunction. The trial Court, it is submitted, erred in holding that the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, whereas the bar to jurisdiction is apparent from the averments made in the plaint itself.

5. It is next contended that the plaintiffs have deliberately and mala fide undervalued the suit to evade payment of proper court fee. Learned counsel points out that the plaint itself admits that construction has already been completed over the disputed land and that the plaintiffs have sought recovery of vacant possession after demolition of the structure standing thereon. In such circumstances, the relief claimed is not a mere declaratory or injunctive relief simpliciter, but one for possession of immovable property coupled with consequential relief, which mandatorily requires payment of ad valorem court fee on the market value of the property. The learned trial Court, it is argued, failed to examine the real nature of the relief claimed and mechanically accepted the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria and others v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others , (2021) SCC OnLine SC 764, wherein it has been authoritat