HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dijjp Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. ApDlicants Resoondents \ CiviS Revjsion No.189 of 2006 1. Abdul Nayeem, Aged about - 54 years, S/o - Hajj Abdul Rahim, Occupation - Unemployed, R/o - Ahmedji Colony, Maulana Abdui RaufWard, Raipur (C.G.) 2. AfocSuI Kayyum, Aged about - 52 years, S/o - Haji Abdul Rahim, Occupation - Unemployed, R/o - Ahmedji Colony, Maulana Abdul RaufWard. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Abdul Kareem, Aged about 49 years, S/o - Abdul Rahim, Occupation - Unemptoyect, R/o - Ahmedji Coiony, Maulana Abdul RaufWard, Raipur (C.G.) ^srsus 1. Nagar Palik Nigam, Through : Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Court Appellate Samiti, Nagar PalJk Nigam, Raipur, Nagar Palika Bhavan, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Hajiyani Saida Jamal, Aged about 55 years. W/o Hajj Mohammad Jamaluddin, R/o - In front of Raipur Bakery, Madarsa Road, Baijanathpara, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Hamida Begum, Aged about - 54 years, S/o Haji Abdul Rahim, R/o - Sanjay Nagar, Raipur(C.G.) 5. Aamna Begum, Aged about 53 years, W/o Shabbir Kureshi, Laxminagar, Behind Marble Line, Ring Road. Raipur (C.G.) 6. Hajiyanj Aisha Begum. Aged about 52 years, W/o Haji Aishanul Hak, Irrigation Colony, Bitaspur (C.G.) 7. Farida Khan, Aged about 50 years, W/o Talat Khan, R/o Swaran Jayanti Nagar, Ring Road No.2. H.No. 65, B.ilaspur (C.G.) 8. Wahida Begum, Aged about 48 years, W/o Dr. Tanveer Ahmed, R/o Parradah - Mominpara, Ambjkapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Respondente No. 3 to 8 all are residents of Hajiyani Saida Jamal Madarsa Road, tn front of Raipur Bakery, Baijnathpara, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Revisjon under Sectjon 115 of Code of Civj! Proceciure Present : Applicants by Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel. Respondents No.1 and 2 by Shri Pankaj Agrawal,counsel. Respondents No. 3 to 8 by Shri Anil Pandey, counsel. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9th May, 2007) Heard. 2. Thjs Civil Rev?sion is directed against an order dated 27.10.2006 passed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, Vllth Civil Judge Class-JI, Raipur (henceforth 'the lower Court') in CMI Suit No. 26-A of 2006, rejecting the appljcation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of CMt Procedure (henceforth 'the Code') fited by the applicants/defendants. 3. Admittedly, respondents No.3 to 8 are the daughters and the appticante are the sons of late Haji Abdu! Rahim. 4. Respondents No. 3 to 8 fiied CMI Suit No.26-A of 2006 before the VIJth Civii Judge Class-tl, Raipur for a dectaration that the order dateci 8.3.2006 passed by respondents No.1 & 2 herein mutating the names of the applicants herein over the suit property was void and for a permanent injunctfon for restrajnjng the applteants herein from alienating or transferring the suit property in any manner. It was pteaded that the applicante herein, in order to deprive them from the suit property, had. in collusion with a land mafia, got the signatures of late Haji Abdul Rahim over a Hibanama retating to the suit property. Respondents No. 3 to 8/piaintiffs had preferred an objection in the mutation proceedings before the Municjpal Corporation, Raipur, j.e., Revenue Case No.109/RC/2002, during pendency ofwhich, Hajj Abdul Rahjm died. On 11 .09.2002, the names of the applicants/defendants as also responctents No.3 to 8/plaintiffs were jointly mutated over the suit house. An appea! was preferred by ttie applicante/defendants before the Appeal Committee, Munidpat Corporation, Raipur. Vide order dated 8.3.2006, the names of the applicante/defendants were mutated over the sujt house, ^~. 5. The appljcants/defendante fited an appjication under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with SectJon 151 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground undler sub-section (6) of Section 403 of the Chhattisgarh Municjpal Corporation Act, 1956 (henceforth 'the Act, 1956') that since no appeal or revjsjon (ies against the dedsion of the AppeaJ Committee, the jurisdiction of the Civii Court was impljedly barred. It was also stated that since the plaintiffs had not chadenged the Hibanama executedt by Hazi Abdut Rahjm, the suit was not maintainable and no cause of action arose in favour of the plainttflFs. 6. The learned iower Court dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 27.10.2006 on the ground that the suit was for a cJeclaration and permanent injunctjon and since the jurisdiction of the Civjl Oourt was not specJficaKy barred under Section 403(6) of the Act, 1956, rejection of the plaint on the basjs of the pjaint allegations was not cailed for. 11 granted Siberty to the appficante/defendlants to raise all such objections tn the written statement. 7. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appiicants/defendants placed reliance on Rffja Ram Kumar Bhargava fcfe^cfl by LRs.^/s. Union oflndia, ASR 1988 SC 752jn support of his contention that exciusion of the CMI Court's jurisdiction is impliedly barred under Section 403(6) of the Act, 1956. Placing reliance on Vlnay Krfshna vs. Keshav Chandrs and another, AiR 1993 SC 957 and Ram Saran and another vs. Smt Qangs Devf, AIR 1972 SC 2885, it was also contended that since respondents No.3 to 8/plaintiffe were not in possession of the suit property, a mere suit for declaration was not maintajnable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 8. On the other hand, Shri Anil Pandey, leamed counsel for respondents No.3 to 8/plajntiffs contended that the plaintiffs had moved an appiication for amendment of the plasnt ciaiming reiief for declaration that the Hlbanama executed by Hajl Abdul Rahim was void. It was argued that the jurisdiction of the Civit Court was not specificaKy barred. It was also contended that the case of Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (^ead) by LRs. vs. Unlon of fndia (supra) cited by the appljcants/defendants was cleariy distjngujshabie becau^e in that case the remedy of a civil suit was not provided! under common law, whereas, in the present case, on the basis of the plaint ailegations, cause of action arose jn favour of respondente No.3 to 8/plajntiffe for invoking the juriscijction of the Civjl Court clajming the relief of deelaration and permanent injunction. 9. Havjng considered the rival submissions, 1 have perused the copies of the documents filed atong wjth the applicatton for revision. 10. The plaint (Annexure-5) fitecl by respondents No.3 to 8/plaintiffe nowhere shows that the plaintiffe are not Sn possession of the disputed property.It js well settled that an applicatjon under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Cocte is to be dedded only on the basis of the pteadings contained in the plaint. As submitted by learned counsel for respondente No.3 to 8/plaintjflFs, they have now also prayedl for the relief of a declaration that the Hihanama executed by Haji Abdul Rahim was void. Under Section 403(6) of the Act, 1956. no appeal or revision ties against the decjsion of the Appeal Committee. However, this decision taken by the Appeat Commjttee is regarding the propriety of the mutation proceedings. So far as the relief of deciaration that the Hibanama executed by Haji Abdul Rahim was void and didl not confer any vaiid titte on the applicante/defenciants and the relief of permanent injunction restraining the applicants/defendants from alienating or transferring the suit house in any manner are concerned, these rellefe lie exclusjvely within the ctomain of the Civd Court and the jurisdiction of the CMI Court is not barred, 11. In this view of the matter, t am of the considered opinion that on the basis of the pjeadings contained in the plaint and also considering the fact of amendment therein, it cannot be said tttat jurisdiction of the Civit Court is barred or that the suit was not majntainabie. The learned lower Court thus rightiy rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe Code while granting Itberty to the applicants/defendants to raise all such objections in the written statement. 12. Accordingly, l ftnd no merit in this revision. which is djsmissed. Sd/- DUipRaosabebDeshmukh Judge