Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubhank Yadav vs Smt Gyarsi Bai Kol on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52844
1 CR-1041-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 1041 of 2025
SHUBHANK YADAV
Versus
SMT GYARSI BAI KOL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - P.L. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved
by the order dated 19.6.2025 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Jabalpur in RCSA No.3022/2025, whereby an application submitted by the
petitioner defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no
mention of Khasra No., Block No. and correct position defining the identity
of the property in the plaint map and as such in absence of the identity, no
cause of action has been accrued to the respondent plaintiff to file the present
suit. It is further averred in the application that the plaintiff has not made
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur as a party in the suit. It is further averred in
the application that the respondent/ plaintiff has not valued the suit with
proper valuation, therefore, the orders are required to be passed under Order
7, Rule 11 CPC to correct the valuation and pay the court fees accordingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52844
2 CR-1041-2025
On these grounds, he has filed the application, which has been dismissed on
the ground that the relief and the facts which have been asserted in the
application are not covered under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. Considered the submissions of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is evident from the impugned order that the court below has
rejected the application on the ground that the relief which has been sought
by the petitioner by way of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is not
covered under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner has
claimed that because the respondent plaintiff has not clearly shown the
identity of the property, the cause of action has not accrued to the respondent
to file the present suit. From bare perusal of plaint, annexure A/1, the cause
of action has been pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff. In fact, in the relief,
the plaintiff has clearly stated the House Nos. and the boundaries of which
the declaration has been sought. If there is any infirmity in the House Nos.
and the identity of the properties, which has been pleaded, then it is a matter
of evidence which cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d)
CPC. The Hon. Apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs.
M/s Swaika Properties and another, (1985) 3 SCC 217 has held that it would
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a
judgment of the court. Meaning thereby, that such infirmity in regard to
disclosure of the identity is a matter of proof and cannot be decided at the
stage of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. To decide the application, it is settled
law that pleadings of the plaint are germane. No other document is required
to be seen. In fact, no inference can be drawn only on the defence of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52844
3 CR-1041-2025
petitioner defendant, that is always subject to trial.
5. As regards second contention, the plaintiff in clause 20 of the plaint
has stated that State of M.P. has been made party to the suit, however, no
relief is being claimed against the Govt., therefore, the contention of the
petitioner/defendant that provision of section 80 CPC has not been complied
is of no avail and is rejected.
6. As regards third contention, the Suit Valuation Act provides that the
suit would be valued at the value of the subject matter of the suit. The
respondent plaintiff is the dominus litis and has to assess the suit according
to the just and reasonable valuation. The said valuation can be decided on the
rival submissions, pleadings and evidence led by the parties. At the stage of
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, from bare perusal of the same, the same cannot be
decided as one party is ascertaining the value at X amount and the other party
is ascertaining the value at Y amount. The said amount can be determined
only by way of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not
point out from the statute or any authority on the point that the approach
taken by the court below is not in conformity with the law.
7. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the court below
has not committed any illegality, irregularity, much less a jurisdictional error
in deciding the application.
8. The revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52844
4 CR-1041-2025
HS
