Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is unsustainable without documentary evidence establishing a statutory bar.

The Applicants (Defendants No. 1 and 2) challenged an order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bemetara, which dismissed their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC

The Respondents (Plaintiffs) had filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, possession, and permanent injunction

The Applicants sought rejection of the plaint on two grounds: first, that the suit is barred by Sections 6-C and 46 of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960, due to ongoing ceiling cases

second, that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the ancestral property is allegedly situated in Raipur District

1. Whether the civil suit was barred under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960, warranting a rejection of the plaint.

2. Whether the plaint disclosed a lack of jurisdiction or failed to state a cause of action due to the location of the ancestral property.

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law

Sections 6-C and 46 of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960, which restrict the jurisdiction of civil courts over lands declared as "excess" under the Act

the evidentiary principle that the burden of proving that property is ancestral or subject to statutory bars lies with the party asserting such facts when the pleadings alone do not establish the bar

the Applicants failed to provide documents identifying specific Khasra numbers of the land declared "excess"

While an order from 1997 showed a proposal to declare 7.15 acres as excess, no evidence was provided to show this order was made absolute, and certain Khasra numbers (948, 949, and 951) were specifically exempted

the bar under Section 46 of the Act of 1960 could not be established at this preliminary stage

the location of ancestral property and its status are matters of fact to be proved by the Plaintiffs during the trial

Since the Applicants failed to substantiate their contentions with Khasra numbers or conclusive evidence, the trial court was justified in refusing to reject the plaint

It held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be allowed based on unsubstantiated factual claims regarding ceiling proceedings or property location that require trial

The Civil Revision was dismissed at the admission stage and the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 was affirmed