Digitally 2026:CGHC:7595 RAGHVENDRAsigned by JAT RAGHVENDRA JAT NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 49 of 2026

1 - Suresh Chandra Pandey S/o Late Gajanand Pandey Aged About 62 Years R/o Bangalipara Sarkanda, Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defandant No. 1)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Dayanand Paswan S/o Late Sushil Paswan Aged About 58 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar, Tifra Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

(Plaintiff).

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

11/02/2026

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

“The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Call for the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court and set-aside the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Learned 10th District Judge Bilaspur, (C.G.) in the civil suit no. 107-A/2021 (at present a new civil suit no. 88-A/2025) and allow the application of Applicant/Defendant no.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and reject the plaint presented by the plaintiff/Respondent no 1 in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1/Plaintiff instituted a civil suit alleging, inter alia, that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the Applicant/Defendant No. 1, which was to be repaid within two months, however, being engaged in the business of real estate and owing to certain unforeseen circumstances, he could not repay the said amount within the stipulated period. It is further averred that during the intervening period, the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff undertook a project involving purchase of land bearing Khasra Nos. 164/1 and 164/25 admeasuring 5.07 acres, P.H. No. 42, situated at Village Ratanpur, owned by Rameshwer Prasad Patanwar and Harish Patanwar, for the purpose of developing farmhouses by dividing the land into plots of 14 dismil each. For acquisition and development of the said land, an amount of Rs. 40,85,000/- was arranged from various persons, out of which Rs. 25,32,000/- was paid to the landowners and the remaining Rs. 15,32,000/- was utilized towards development expenses. It is alleged that upon learning of the said project, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 demanded repayment of his loan and, as the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff was unable to repay the same, he was allegedly pressurized to have the sale deed of the said land executed in favour of the Applicant/Defendant No. 1. Consequently, under such alleged pressure, the original landowners executed a sale deed dated 09.10.2018 in favour of the Applicant/Defendant No. 1, along with an agreement between the parties stipulating that upon full repayment of the loan amount, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 would execute a sale deed in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff or his nominee. Subsequently, when the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff requested execution of a sale deed in favour of a third party, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 refused, leading to allegations in the plaint that the sale deed dated 09.10.2018 was fraudulently executed in favour of the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 without payment of sale consideration by him, despite the consideration having allegedly been paid by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, a declaration was sought that the said sale deed is non est in the eyes of law and that the Plaintiff be declared bhumiswami of the suit land, with the agreement and sale deeds. During pendency of the suit, the Applicant/Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the suit is barred by law, discloses no cause of action, and is improperly valued, and prayed for rejection of the plaint, however, by order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 107-A/2021 by the learned 10^th District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), the application was rejected on the ground that while deciding an a