A.P-R HI6H COUftT OF CHHATTES6ARH: BILA5PUR 5.8. HON'BLE SHKC VIJAY KUMAR SHRiyASTAVA, J CIVIL ftEVISION N0.191 of 2005 Petitioner M/s Maruti Cjean CoaS csid Power Limited (Maruti) A company incorporated under 1+i©Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at G-9 Hira Arcade, Pandri, Raipur (C^). Defendant No.2 Versus Respondents 1) South Eastern Coal Flejcls Lirn.sted (SECL), A ^oyernrnent CompGny incorporGted under the Coi?5payiies Act, 1956/ hayjng its registered office at &epat Road, Bibspur (CB) Pbintiff 2) State ^overnment of C(^ through Cottector, Korba t>€fendGntNvJ. PRESENT: Shri BP'Sharma with ShrS K Mehra, counsei foi- the petitioner. Shri HB Agmwai, Senior Advocate with Shri OP AgrawaS, and Shri i4K Sinha, Coun^l for respondent NQ,I, Shri Pi-isshant Mishro. Addi. Adv. ^neral for respondent No.2/Stute. OR &ER ( Passed on 8th February 2007) This revision under Section i15 of the Code of Civii Procedure (for short "the CPC") has been directed ayuinst the order duted .._..-..-z- 07.12.2006 passed by the CiviS Judye, Chss H, SCatghora in CiviS Suit No.90-A of 2004 where by petitloner's upp{jcation under Order VIT Ruk 11 vf the CPC for rejection of the pbint hus been disn-iissed. 2) State of Chhattisgarh executed a Sease deed in favour of the petitioner and thereby ieased out iand measurlng 37.91 acres beariny Khasra Nos 850/24. 850/27, 850/28. 850/30, 850/31 and 850/32 which is th€!and in dispute, Rcspondent No.l ciaiming the iand of hls own on the ground thut under the CoaS Bearing Area (AcquIsStion and &€V€iopment)Act, 1957 ths farsd has been acquir^d by the Central ^overnment for them and they ara accordingSy titSe hoiders 1+iereof, fited u Civi! Suit for declaration of titSe and permanent injunctjon. 3) Petitioner fiied an uppSication under Order VII Ruie 11 of -Hie CPC for r^jection of the pjaint on the foiSowing grounds : 1) 2) 3) Jhe pSaint disciosed no caus^ of action as the suit propert/ being KhG^ra No.594, 611 and 616 In yjjlage Ratiza was nesther in the possession nor had been ajiotted to the petjtioner. That the suit jand had been valued arbitrorISy, unreasonQbly and that on <i proper ya!uation the KQtghora Court is not iurisdiction to entertain th©suit. Jhe suit was barred by law in accordance with th€ proyjsion of the Specifjc Reiief Act sn absence of reiief of possessson, 4) Sarred by principles of res judicata 4) L^urned iower Couy"t considered counter pSeadings and argu^^nt^ advanced by both the parties, aiso considered averment, the map crinexed 1+serein and found thut the Sand bearing Khasra -^CN^ No,594, 611 and 616 acquired in favour of respondent No.l having shown u3ra No.850 und uccordingiy hoid presence of c<Kjse of action, Her^, it is not out of pSace to mention that the Scind ieased out to petitioner by r^spondent No.l is cbiiried by respondent No,l under CentraS ^overnment notification. AdmittedSy, petitioner has taken possession ovcr the suit Sand under the grant issued In his favour by the State^ Thcrefore, so far as cau3€of action is concerned, ieay-ned triai Court did not err in deciding it in favour of respondent No*l. 5) So far as oippSicabiSity of Order VH ftuie 11 of the CPC with regard to vuiuGtion &nd payment of Court fee §s concerned, the reSevant prov'Ssion r€udsas beiow : OrderyTL,Ruien(b)A(c) nlL Rsjecthn af plalnt- The p!amt shall be t^jsct^d sn the foll(?SAfinQ €^^s^.t" (2^ wher^ the refief claimec/ ss undcrvafued, and the pfalntlff, cn being rsquired by ths Caurt to correct the VGfuatfon wfiftin a ffme to be fixed by the court, fal!s to do so: (c) whefe the relSef ckximed Is propen'y valued but thc phint ss written upon paper in^ufffclent!y stamped, and Ihe plamtiff, an bcmg requfred by ihe court ta supply ihe requlslte stamp-puper wfthin a f/ms to be fixed by ths Courf fall^ to da so: tff 6) From bare reading of the above provision, it is munifest thut to uppjy it, the Court has to deterraine whether the eluim is under vaiusd or written upon pap&r insufficientiy starrtj^d Gnd liiereafter 1 ^II^JI'^^i^ 4 direct the piaintiff to correct it and on being quSred by the Court to corr^ct it, piuintiff faiis to do so, 7) Order VI£ftuie 11 of the CPC does not empower u Court to appiy' the provision after deciding controversies ira betvveen the parties, but it q3piies on pbint averment, therefore, if from the pieading aione pSuint fuiSs within the Cutegor/ of OreSer VII ftuSe 11 (fa) or (c) of the CPC, the question of non payrrient of Court fee or vaiuation becomes rsiBvcint. in view ot pScudiny, ra!i8f tor dacfur^ition und iHjunctJon appears to be correct and the triai Court correctiy hcld that the preserst pblnt does not fa!! withi'n the four corners of Order VTE Ruie il(b)&(c)oftheCPC. 8) Under Seetion 34 of the Specifie ReSief Aet, 1963 (for short "the Act") if pbintiff is requir^d to ask for r^Sief of possession, who faiis to ^ek such reii^f and rierely proryS for decjaration, in l4iat case equity demands that the Court, befoi-e dismissG! of 1fi€ suit, niust afford reasonabte opportunity to the phintjff to cSaim the reStef required in accordance with the proviso of Section 34 of 1+ie Aet. 'TTiereafter, if pbintiff faiSs to do so, the suit may be dismissed, At thls preiimi'nary juncture, absence of prayer for grant of reiief of pos^ssion in yiew of the pieading does not bar the suit 9) Petitioner's contention though oppo^d is that judgment render^d by Hon'bje ^ie Apex Court in TN SodsvGrmQri Thirumufpsd Vs Union of India and other/, creates a bar under principie of res Judicata for institution of the pre^nt suit. Foifowing paragr<xphs of the above judgment being reievant, arc quoted GS beiow : 161: TTie question for considerution in the^ matters is whether the lalid mea^uring abQyf 15 hectcres Jeased by the State of ChhattisQarh to M/s Maruti Ciean Coai and Power Limited (for ^hort, "Marutj") for ^etting yp of cQal wa^hery is a part of forest Jcyid or not. This question has becn raised by one Geepuk Agr<xwai by fiiing 1A No.858 of 2003 cjajming to be a pubHc spiritsd person and journaiist by profession and concerned ubout the adverse effect on the enyironment of the area as a resu!t of the grant of Jeose of fore^t Jond for non-forest activities in vio{ation of iaw, Jhe appijcunt chiniS that undue fayour' ond patr-onQge has been extended to Maruti for estabJishment of coal wa^hery plant in respect of icrid which is a for^st iand by wrongiy showing in yariou^ records that the iand is part of Village Nawagaon Khurd whereos actually the land forms purt of yiliuye Ratija. 21: ^t this stage, we may note 1+iat some di^pute a5 to the title of the !and in question between the State ^ovemment cxnd Maruti on one hCTid uUd AfV3 So-uth Ea3t CoSiJeries Limited (SECL) on the other is pending sn a ciyi! coyrt In these proceedings, we are not concerned about the title of the fand that rriuy have to be examined aid decided by the ciyi! court A!! pleas, factual and Jeaal, as permissible in hw, wouid be open to the parties to be agituteci before 1+ie ciyi! court. The Qn!y que^tjon for our consideration in these proceedinas is as to the nalur^ of the Sand, namely it is forest Sand or not. 39: Sefoi-e concfuding, it may aiso bc noted that except Deepak ^grawal, other partie^ before us have not questioned the conclusions in the second ancS the third reports of CEC thut the bnd in que5tiQH is not a forest land, Besides, Maruti besng the ailottee, the State of Chhattisgarh, the 1 {2006} 5 SCC 28 s Ministry of Environment cxnd Forests, the Forest 5urysy of Zndjd cind eysn SECL hdys not auestioned the conclusion of CEC that 1tie Jand in question is not u forest Sand. 40: In view of the aforesuid discussion, even on fact^ we flnd no substance in the p'ea that the land alJotted to Marutj is forest land. Accordi'ngiy, we accept the i-econimendations of CEC QS contQined in 1+se secorsd arsd third reports, M already noted, the dispute in respect of the title i3 not u matter in issue before us. Thus, we haye notexamined thi5 issue," 10) From conjoint reading of the ufor^said paragr^phs as weS! after going through the r^port of CEC cxnnexed abng with th€petition hcrein, it is cSear that Hon'bie the Apex Court on!y decided that the iand aiiotted to Maruti is not forest bnd, Hon'bSe the Ayex court in speeific words has stateci that the dispute i'n respect of IStle is not u matter in issue before th&m, therefore, they have not examined that. Ciear enough to Suy that the judgment rendered by Hon'bSe the Apex Court in the mattar of ^/davurumurs (supru) does not Cf-eate a bar on the prineipie of res Jucficata for udjudication of tit?e in betvvesn the parties, So far as report of CEC is concerned, the finding recorded by it does not amount Courtls finding. 11) In the resuSt, th€ impugned order passed by the triui Court does not suffcr from any iikgaSSty or irregularity, which muy calS for interfcrence by this Court in i'ts revisiona! JurisdictSon, theiusefora, 1t?€ revision being devoid of merit is dismissed, 12) Pets'tioner ohai! pay the cost to respondents No,l ^ 2._^, Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge