HIGH COURTQFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Applicant Defendant No.1 ^. Respondents Plaintiffs Civil Revision No. 09 of 2008 Manoj Kumar Agrawal, aged about 35 years S/o late Satyanarayan Agrawal R/o Main Raod, Janjgir Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (CG) versus 1. Bhagwat Prasad, Aged about 60 years S/o late Ramlal Rajwade 2. Phoolbai aged about 62 years D/o late Ramlal Rajwade. 3. Jhul Bai aged about 50 years D/o late Ramlal Rajwade. 4. Shiv Kumari aged about 47 years D/o late Ramlal Rajwade. 5. Kalindri Bai aged about 40 years D/o late Ramlal Rajwade All R/0 Village Banari, by caste Kurmi Tahsil-Janjgir District-Janjgir-Champa CG. 6. Ved Nath Raj'wade aged about 32 years S/o Komal Prasad Rajwade, R/o village Banari, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (CG) 7. Smt. Sushila Bai aged about 50 years Widow of Komal Prasad, R/o Village Karma Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa CG. 8. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Janjgir Champa C.G. (Defendants No.2 to 4) Civil Revision U/S 115 of Civil Procedure Code Present : Shri Vishnu Koshta with Shri N.P.Koshta, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No.8 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16tn ofJanuary, 2008) Heard on admission. 2. The applicant/defendant No.1 is aggrieved by an order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant No.1 was dismissed. 3. I have perused the pleadings of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not the executants or parties to the sale deed dated 14.05.2007 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and pleaded that the sale deed was void ab-initio and not binding on them. In the facts pleaded the relief for injunction claimed by the plaintiffs is not a consequential relief but an independent relief, and therefore, the matter squarely falls under Article 17 of Schedule - II of the Cpurt Fees Act, 1870 and fixed court fee is payable. In this view ofthe matter, the rejection ofthe application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. 4. There is no merit in this Civil Revision which is accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.1 for grant of stay is also dismissed. 1 Sd/- I DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh i Judge