Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC requires the court to consider only the averments in the plaint. If triable issues regarding jurisdiction or statutory bars exist, the suit cannot be summarily rejected and must be decided during trial.

(Order On Board)

1. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed in Civil Suit No. 201-A/2025 titled as “ Smt. Subhagini Kapila Ekka and Ors. vs. Sangeeta Singh and others”, whereby the application of the Defendant No.3/Applicant herein under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed by VIth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur (C.G.).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner, by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.08.1993, purchased land bearing Khasra No. 732 and 761/3, which, after division, was renumbered as Khasra No. 732/6 and included Khasra No. 761/13, admeasuring 1504 sq. ft., situated at Village Shankar Nagar, P.H. No. 63, Rajsva Nirikshak Mandal No. 8, Tehsil and District Raipur. The said land was purchased from Shatrughan and others. From the same vendors, late Mr. Tarsiuss Ekka, husband of respondent No. 01 and father of respondents No. 02 to 04, purchased land bearing Khasra No. 732 and 761/3, admeasuring 1819 sq. ft., situated at Village Shankar Nagar, P.H. No. 110/63, by a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1993. Thereafter, the revision petitioner got her land demarcated by the revenue authorities, and a demarcation report dated 12.05.2023 was prepared under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Subsequently, the revision petitioner sold the said land by a registered sale deed dated 24.04.2024 in favour of respondents No. 05 and 06. Respondents No. 01 to 04 challenged the aforesaid sale transaction by instituting a civil suit before the Court of the VIth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur (C.G.), seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. In paragraph No. 8 of the plaint, it was alleged that the revision petitioner had manipulated the boundaries of her land in the sale deed dated 24.04.2024 in order to sell land situated at a better location, and in doing so, had in fact sold the land belonging to respondents No. 01 to 04 to respondents No. 05 and 06. Upon being summoned, the revision petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the averments in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action, as no dispute of title has been raised with respect to land bearing Khasra No. 732/6, including Khasra No. 761/13, admeasuring 1504 sq. ft., which was the land owned and sold by the revision petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 24.04.2024. It was further contended that the allegation in paragraph No. 8 of the plaint, even if taken at face value, discloses only a boundary dispute, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It was also submitted that the revision petitioner had sold the land only after obtaining a demarcation report from the competent revenue authorities dated 12.05.2023. If respondents No. 01 to 04 had any grievance regarding the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 24.04.2024, they ought to have challenged the demarcation report before the appropriate revenue authority under the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. However, respondents No. 01 to 04 neither challenged the demarcation report nor sought demarcation of their own land, and instead directly instituted the civil suit alleging manipulation of boundaries. The learned Trial Court, by the im