IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 724 of 2023

ASHOK PAL AND OTHERS

Versus

KOSHAL KISHOR DUBEY

Appearance:

Mr. Sumant Mishra - Advocate for applicants.

Mr. Maroof Ullah Sidddiqui - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER interlocutory. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that civil revision against the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is maintainable as the non-

This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the

th

order dated 01/09/2023 passed by 10 Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in R.C.S.A. No. 621/2023 by which application filed by applicants/defendants under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. A preliminary objection was raised by counsel for respondent that since

the order rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is interlocutory in nature, therefore, the civil revision is not maintainable, and in fact, applicants

should have filed a miscellaneous petition.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for respondent.

4. By order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court would finally

adjudicate as to whether the plaint has been suitably valued and a proper court fee has been paid or not. Once the Court comes to a conclusion that a proper court fee has not been paid or the plaint has not been suitably valued, then it shall pass such an order. Merely because time is required to be granted to the plaintiff to comply the order would not make the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

compliance of the same would result in final disposal of the suit.

5. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of plaintiff that he is the owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 184/1, area 1.108 hectares, situated in village Chandapura, Tahsil and District Gwalior. Aforesaid land was purchased by plaintiff from Smt. Munni Bai and Rishi Kumar Dubey, and Vikas Dubey by a registered sale deed dated 22/03/2016 for a consideration of Rs. 35,16,000/- and possession was handed over by the vendors to plaintiff. Plaintiff got his name mutated in the revenue record, and it was claimed that he is still in possession of the land in dispute. From the year 2018, plaintiff was continuously under mental ailment and as a result, he had lost his ability to understand the things, and accordingly, his treatment is going on. For the treatment, plaintiff was in need of money, therefore, he took Rs. 20,00,000/- from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of loan. Plaintiff is a villager with poor educational qualifications and is also mentally unfit. Since relationship of the plaintiff with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was cordial, therefore, plaintiff agreed to execute a document by way of security of loan. However, defendants, with a dishonest intention, got a sale deed executed which was never in the knowledge of plaintiff. It was never intended by plaintiff to execute the sale deed. However, by taking advantage of the precarious medical condition of plaintiff, defendants have got the sale deed executed. It was further pleaded that plaintiff has never handed over the possession of the property in dispute to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was the case of plaintiff that he never intended to alienate the property, but he merely intended to execute a document by way of security of loan. However, by playing fraud on him and by taking advantage of the precarious medical condition of plaintiff, defendants have got a sale deed dated 19/12/2019 executed in their favour. Since the sale deed was obtained by fraud, therefore, no right or title stood transferred to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and accordingly, a permanent injunction was also sought that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 may be permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of applicant.

6. Defendants/applicants filed an application under Order 7 R