### Preliminary Issues of Valuation and Statutory Jurisdiction Must Be Adjudicated Before Deciding Suit on Merits

The applicants (defendants) challenged an order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the 6th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, which rejected their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

The non-applicants (plaintiffs) had filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and recovery of vacant possession regarding 1819 sq. ft. of land.

The applicants contended the suit was barred by Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code as it essentially concerned a boundary dispute, and further alleged the suit was undervalued to evade court fees.

The Trial Court dismissed the Order VII Rule 11 application, holding that the bar of jurisdiction and valuation were mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence.

1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of being barred by Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

2. Whether the suit was undervalued and lacked sufficient court fees, warranting rejection at the threshold.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint while ensuring foundational issues are decided early.

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint if it is barred by law or fails to disclose a cause of action.

It relied on *Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali* (2020) regarding the duty of the Court to look beyond clever drafting to the substance of the pleadings.

and *Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan* (2021) which held that suits providing no grantable relief must be "nipped in the bud".

Furthermore, Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was cited as the statutory bar against Civil Courts entertaining questions on the demarcation of boundaries.

The Court also referenced *Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner* (2004) regarding the determination of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

The High Court observed that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court must strictly scrutinize the averments in the plaint without considering the written statement or defense.

The Court found that since the plaintiffs sought declaration of title and possession, the Trial Court correctly held that the suit was not *ex facie* barred at the threshold as a mere boundary dispute.

However, the High Court emphasized that the objections regarding valuation, court fees, and the statutory bar under Section 257(g) are "foundational issues" that go to the root of the matter.

Applying Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, the Court reasoned that even if the plaint is not rejected immediately, such jurisdictional and valuation challenges must be adjudicated as preliminary issues to prevent unnecessary protraction of the trial.

However, it disposed of the Revision by directing the Trial Court to frame specific preliminary issues regarding: (i) valuation and court fees, (ii) the jurisdictional bar under Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, and (iii) the sustainability of the cause of action.

The Trial Court was ordered to decide these preliminary issues within three months, affording parties an opportunity to lead evidence if necessary.

The Civil Revision was disposed of without an order as to costs.