H1GH_COURT GF CHHATTiSGAWi AT BiLASPUR Civjj Revision No. 105 of 2010 licant No. Defendant No.1 1. Harshit bai; aged about 55 yrs. wd/o Aiiczender Masih ADpiicant No.2 Defendant No.3 2. Neison, sged about 32 yrs. &'o late Aliczender Ma&'h Defendant No.. ff»'n^ Platntif!fs >1 Defendant No.2 Rupesh, aged about 23 yrs. a'o iate Aiiczender Masih Aii r/o viii. Kholwa, Patwari circte No.6, P.S./Tahsil Bhafapara, Distt.Raipur C.G.) Versus Nirmla, agsd about 47 yrs. cii'o Mohan Masih r/o Shaidi ward, snatapara P.O./Tahsii/P.S.Bhatapara DJstt.Raipur C.G. Rakesh, aged about 38 yrs. a'o iate Aiiczendsr Masih Non-appSicant No.3 Defendant No.5 Roshni, aged about 27 yrs. d/o late Aliczender Masih Non-agplicant No,4 4. Defendant No.6 Non-apDiicant No.5 5. 4. M.n -? Non-apRSicant No.s Defendant No.8 Defendant No.9 Non-appiicant ISio.i Defendant No.10 6. 7. 8. Yunus Masih, aged about 42 yrs s/o Late Mohan Masih No.2, 3 & 4 r/o viil. Kho!v«'a Patwari circie No.6, P.S./Tahsi! Bhatapara, Distt.Raipur C.G. Narsndra Bhushania, aged about 43 yrs. s/o Matadin, r/o Nehru yi/srd, shatapara, P.O./Tahsii Bhatapara, Distt.Ralpur C.G. Keman bai, aged about 57 yrs. d/o Mohan Masih, (w/o Kleton Denia!), r/o X Fransis kawasji ward, Shastri chauk, Jharri TIRuria, behlnd Dr.C.B.Pandey, Katni, Tahsii Gudwara, Distt.Katni M.P. Ajaman bai, aged abouf 54 yrs. d/o Mohan Masih (w/o Hemron Masih), r/o viii. Ganesh Pur, P.0. Bisram pur, Tahsil Simga Distt.Ratpur C.G. Hemlin bai aged about 52 yrs. d/o Mohan Masih (w/o Dantai Masih) r/o Motim pur, . Bokra, Mundinaia -2. Godam, P.0. Bilaspur C.G. Pandaria, Distt Non-apDlscant No.9 .11 Defendant No.11 9. State of C.G. through Distt.Coliector, raipur Distt Raipur C.G. {Civil Rsvision under Ssction 115 ofths CPC) Present:- Mr.B.M.Rao, coun^l forthe appiicants. Mr.U.K.S.Chandei, Panel Lswyer for responderrt No.S/State. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Shsrma, J.) 1. t-2010) By this revision fiied under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"), the appiicants have chaiienged the isgaiity and propriety ofthe order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the Civil Judge Class-li, ihatapara, in Csvii Suit No.19A/2009whereby isarned Civi! Judge Class-il has dismissed the appiication fiied on behaif of the appiteants under Order 7 Ruie 11 of the r'or' for dismissal of suit, inter aiia, retum of plaint for presenting the same before appropriate Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdi'ctton. 3. Learned counsei for the appiicants submrts that aithough non-applicants No.1 to 8 were not party to sa!e deed but they have applied for canceliation of ssie dseci of Rs.2,57,600/- ss nuii and void, therefore, non-sppiicants No.1 to 8 were under obiigation to value the suB for the purpose of declaratton of saie deed as Rs.2,57,600/-, biit they have wrongiy valued the suit, thersfore, the suit was not maintainabie and competent before the Court below. The Court beiow has faited to exercise the jurisdiction vssted on it and has dismissed the appiication fiied under Order 7 Rute 11 ofths CPC. 4. i have perused the order impugned and copy ofthe piaint. 5. Definiteiy, non-appiicants No.1 to 8 were not pariy to sale deed. They are not required to seek any reltef for dsclaratlon of sate deed as nuti and void. Simplteitor re!ief of sate deed not binding upon them v,ouid be \ sufficient. As per aiiegation ofthe pjairtt, aileged sale deed Is not viociabte •'^"fe- but as per pieading, sale dsed is void, therefore, they are requireci to value the plaint as per vaiuation of the sate deed in question. Even otherwlse, if the appiication is ailowed, then the Court is requirsd to provide opportunity for correction of piaint and valuation of the piaint, but proceeding wiil not dstermine, therefore, the present revision is not maintatnable against the order passed !R any proceeding in the Slght of proviso to Sectton 115 of the I^P!" \^i~^. 6. Consequentty, the revision bsing not maintainable is llable to be dismissed and it is hereby dlsmissed at the motion stage itsetf. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma le ^