LPAGE NO....I.. Sns^ B©"ch IILTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l Civil Revision No.: - ^ '"il / 2006. S.B. APPLICANT: - I^EFENDANTNo.l y .^^-' ^ ./.}s^"""" ^^' ^ RESPONDENTS :- PL^mtiff 7~ Kapil Narayan, Age-64 Yrs, S/0 Radheshyam, By Caste Bramhin-Cultivator, R/0 Village Koundkera, P.S. Tahsil Mahasamund, Distt MAHASAMUND (C.G.) VERSUS: / 1. Punit Das, Age-45 Yrs. S/0 Sunder Das Panika, By Caste Panika, By Occupation Kotwar, R/0 Village Koundkera, P.8. Tahsil/Distt Mahasamund, C.G. RESPONDENT 2., DjedFendant No.2 ^ STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Through The Collector, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. \^" ^ -: MEMO OF CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF ^ CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: - ^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATnS@ARH. BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0.64/2006 Kapjl Narayan Vs. Punit Das oind another Appearance: Shri J,A. Lohani, counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (21.6.2006) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. (2) This revision is directed against the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the 1 Civil Judge, Class-II, Mahasamund in civil suit No. 122-A/2006, by which, an application filed by the defendant No.l, applicant herein, under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the ptaint has been dismissed. (3) A perusal of copy of the plaint would show that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration omd possession against the defenckxnt, respondent No.l herein with the allegations that respondent No.l has wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff at a par-ticular point of time and the possession of the tond should be given to him. The further pleadings are that the plaintiff was appointed as a Kotwar of the villa9e and thjs land was given to him as a seryice land and the possession cannot be retained by the said defendant In the said suit, defendant No.l fiied an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. -2-- for rejection of the plaint, raising the grounds that the plaintiff has not taken permission from the State 6'overnment before filin9 the suit and has also not made correct description of the suit property and further the plaint is lacking on many factual aspects. (4) The leamed trial Judge rejected the application, holding that the suit is not barred under cny law. (5) Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in view of the provisions of Section 57 sub-section (2) of the €.6. (M.P.)Lond Revenue Code, 1959, the suit would not be maintainable. He refers to the decision rendered in the matter of Stote of M.P. and CHWther vs. ffyeisfram and others reported in 1993. Ra.iaswa Nimav M.P.Hioh Court. 113. (6) The rejection of 1+»e plaint is possible in the circumstonces which are referred to under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. Order 7. Rute 11 reads as under: Rejection of plaint: The plaint shall be rejected Jn the following cases:- (a) x x xx (b) xx xx (c) xx xx (d) whew Ihe suitoppears from the statsment m Iheplaint to be barred by any law (e) xxxx (f) XX XX (Provided x x x x plainttff) (7) Section 57 sub-section (2) of the M.P. (C.©.)Land Revenue Code provides thoit where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1), such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-bivisional Officer. (8) In the present mat^er, no dispute has been raised against the State 6overnment by the plaintiff and a perusal of the plaint would show that in fact it is inter se dispute betw^n the plaintiff and defendant No.l with regard to possession of the service land, said to have been allotted to the plaintiff at a particular point of time and in the said manner, Section 57, sub-section (2) would not be attracted and ftirther the provisions pf ctause (d) of Rule 11, Order 7 C.P.C. would also not be aftracted in -rtiis case. (9) In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Judge rightly overruled the objection filed by the opplicant under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. There is no merit jn the revision cmd the same is dismissed at the motion stage it^lf. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge StSM^-