Narendra Kumar Shrivastava (Dead) … vs Anand Niketan on 1 May, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Narendra Kumar Shrivastava (Dead) … vs Anand Niketan on 1 May, 2025

                                                            1




          Digitally signed
          by SOURABH
                                                                           2025:CGHC:20036
SOURABH PATEL
        Date:

                                                                                          NAFR
PATEL   2025.05.07
          10:18:49
          +0530




                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                  CR No. 117 of 2025


                             1. Narendra Kumar Shrivastava (Dead) Through - The Legal Heirs
                               Smt. Nisha Shrivastava W/o Late Narendra Kumar Shrivastava
                               Aged About 71 Years R/o Near Anand Niketan Gate, Avanti
                               Vihar Colony, P.O. - Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).
                             2. Sameer Shrivastava S/o Late Narendra Kumar Shrivastava Aged
                               About 43 Years R/o Near Anand Niketan Gate, Avanti Vihar
                               Colony, P.O. - Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                                   ... Applicants
                                                         versus


                             1. Anand Niketan R/o Welfare Samiti, Panjikrit Sanstha, Dwara-
                               Karyakari Adhyaksh - Narendra Kumar Verma, S/o Late Shri
                               Ratanlal Verma, R/o E-2, Anand Niketan, Maharishi Valmiki
                               Ward, Raipur (C.G.).
                             2. Shriman Aayukt Nagar Palik Nigam Raipur, Gandhi Chowk Ke
                               Paas, Raipur (C.G.),

                                                                                ... Respondents

For Applicants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani,
Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Not noticed

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment On Board

01/05/2025
1 Heard on admission.

2

2 The instant civil revision has been filed by the

applicants/defendants under Section 115 of the Code of

Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 05.12.2024,

passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC),

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 73/2013,

whereby, the application filed by the applicants under

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.

3 Brief facts of the case are that the R-1 herein filed an

application under Section 307(5) of the Municipal

Corporation Act, 1956 before the learned District Judge,

Raipur (C.G.) against the applicants herein for removal

of the illegal construction and unauthorized possession

of the land situated near Anand Niketan and for

injunction.

4 The applicants/defendants submitted an application

under Order 07 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, stating

that the case of the respondents revolves around the

alleged construction by the applicants in violation of the

approved map sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation,

Raipur but the applicants/defendants have duly

regularized the layout plan from the Joint Director,

Town and Country Planning Department.

5 Respondent No. 1 denied the said claim of the

applicants/defendants in his reply stating that the
3

application was filed because the defendants/applicants

constructed in violation of the approved map, converting

a residential area into commercial premises and affected

the security of the colony. Although the

defendants/applicants presented a regularization

certificate from the Town and Country Planning

Department, but they failed to provide any approved

map or regularization certificate from the Municipal

Corporation, Raipur. Therefore, the objection raised by

the defendants/applicants is not acceptable and the

application of Order-7 Rule-11 Code of Civil Procedure

should be dismissed.

6 Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated

05.12.2024 rejected the application filed by the

applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC leading to filing

of this revision.

7 Learned counsel for applicants submits that the trial

Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prays

for setting aside of the said order.

8 Heard learned counsel for the applicants/defendants

and perused the record.

9 The said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was

filed by the applicants/defendants stating that the main
4

dispute has already been resolved and regularization has

been done by them, whereas the respondent No. 1 in his

reply has denied the said fact. In this situation, the trial

Court while passing the impugned order held that it

appears that the dispute still exists between both the

parties. It is also evident from the application of the

applicants/defendants that the basis of resolution of the

main dispute taken by them does not fulfill the

ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC because the said

provision does not provide for rejection of the plaint

merely on the ground that one party unilaterally

considers the dispute to be resolved. Therefore, the

application filed by the applicants was dismissed by the

trial Court.

10 Taking into consideration the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any

jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity in passing

the impugned order by the trial Court warranting any

interference therein.

11 Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the

case, the instant Revision is dismissed at motion stage

itself.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.