Dismissed¶31

Madanpur South Coal Company Limited Raipur v. Smt. Dukhmati

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jul 2026CR/251/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order VII Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; limitation as mixed question of law and fact; date of knowledge 15.01.2021; suit filed 07.08.2021; cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008; Survey No.1/586/10, 0.833 hectare; Saradih Barrage Dam land acquisition; P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509; Article 59 Limitation Act; Civil Revision dismissed; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; Madanpur South Coal Company Limited; Sarangarh trial court.

What did the court decide?

On the plaint's own averments, though the sale deed was executed on 04.04.2008, the plaintiff came to know of its execution on 15.01.2021 upon inquiry and filed the suit on 07.08.2021. ¶26

Madanpur South Coal Company Limited Raipur Vs Smt. Dukhmati — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation, where the plaintiff pleaded that she learnt of the execution of the sale deed dated 04.04.2008 only on 15.01.2021 and filed the suit on 07.08.2021.

¶23

Court's answer

On the plaint's own averments, though the sale deed was executed on 04.04.2008, the plaintiff came to know of its execution on 15.01.2021 upon inquiry and filed the suit on 07.08.2021.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

At this stage it cannot be presumed that the pleadings made by the plaintiff with regard to the date of knowledge are false or improbable.

¶31

Key takeaways

The issue relating to limitation could not have been decided at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.ratio¶31
The learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by defendant No.2/applicant, and accordingly the revision fails and is dismissed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (CR No. 251 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Rakesh Mohan Pandey J., order dated 24/07/2026) — DISMISSED. The plaintiff (non-applicant No.1) sued on 07.08.2021 in Civil Suit No.29A/2021 for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008 executed by defendant No.1 (Shambhu) in favour of defendant No.2 (Madanpur South Coal Company Limited), with declaration of title and possession over Survey No.1/586/10 (0.833 hectare), pleading that she discovered the execution only on 15.01.2021 in the course of acquisition for the Saradih Barrage Dam. Defendant No.2's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation was rejected by the Second Additional Civil Judge to the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sarangarh on 18.06.2025. Held, relying on P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509, that where the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact turning on the date of knowledge, it cannot be decided at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the plaint cannot be presumed false or improbable on its pleadings of knowledge; the Trial Court therefore rightly rejected the application. Revision dismissed.

CGHC010414212025

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CR No. 251 of 2025

¶6

Madanpur South Coal Company Limited Raipur Having Its Registered Office At Vanijya Bhawan, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chairman Gopal Krishna Chhangani, S/o Late Shri Krishna Chhangani, Aged About 72 Years, R/o 198, Geetanjali Nagar, Sector- I, Shankar Nagar Raipur (C.G.) (Impleaded Through Director And His Attorney By Plaintiff And Complete Address Has Not Been Mentioned) (Defendant No.2)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Dukhmati D/o Dhanwa Aged About 52 Years Caste Rawat, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jashpur, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). (Plaintiff)

¶10

2 - Shambhu S/o Anjora Aged About 40 Years By Caste Rawat, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jashpur, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant No.1)

¶11

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, Collectorate Office Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.). (Defendant No.3)

¶12

… Non-applicants

¶13

For Applicant : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

24/07/2026

The instant Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.06.2025, passed in Civil Suit No.29A/2021, by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge to the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sarangarh, whereby application moved by the applicant/defendant No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected.

¶19

The facts in brief are that the non-applicant No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008, declaration of title and possession pertaining to land bearing No. Survey No.1/586/10, admeasuring 0.833 hectare, inter alia, on the ground that land is originally belongs to Anjora, Grandfather of the plaintiff who was having two sons, Dhanwa and Shambhu, and nonapplicant No.2/defendant No.1 namely Shambhu sold the the land without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008 in favour of applicant/defendant No. 2.

¶20

The plaintiff pleaded that during the course of acquisition of lands for Saradih Barrage Dam, she did not find her name in the revenue records. Upon inquiry, she came to know that the aforesaid land has been recorded in the name of defendant No. 2/applicant. She visited the office of the Sub-Registrar and came to know that on 04.04.2008 a sale deed had been executed by defendant No. 1, thereafter, she filed the civil suit.

¶21

The applicant/defendant No. 2 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff has challenged the registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008 by filing the civil suit in the on 07.08.2021 and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The application moved by defendant No. 2 was opposed by the plaintiff, and the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 18.06.2025, rejected the said application.

¶22

¶23

Mr. Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Payashi and submit that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, on that ground alone, the plaint cannot be rejected.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

A perusal of the plaint would show that though the sale deed was executed on 04.04.2008, the plaintiff, upon inquiry, came to know about its execution on 15.01.2021 and thereafter filed the suit in the 07.08.2021.

¶27

The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently, in the matter of P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Another, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509 , held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as time-barred when the issue of limitation involves a mixed question of law and fact, such issue cannot be decided at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It has further been held that the High Court had proceeded to reject the suit as being barred by limitation without examining whether the pleadings regarding the date of knowledge were acceptable or not. In that case, the document was executed in the year 1988, the alleged effect thereof was discovered by the plaintiff in the year 2011, and thereafter the suit was filed in the year 2014. A plea was taken by the defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.

¶28

10.In the present case also, the sale deed was executed by defendant No.

¶29

1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff came to know about this fact in the year 2021 and immediately thereafter filed the suit in the same year.

¶30

¶31

11.At this stage, it cannot be presumed that the pleadings made by the plaintiff with regard to the date of knowledge are false or improbable, therefore, the issue relating to limitation could not have been decided at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; thus, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by defendant No. 2/applicant. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶34

Nadim

Madanpur South Coal Company Limited Raipur v. Smt. Dukhmati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madanpur South Coal Company Limited Raipur v. Smt. Dukhmati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shail Dubey Vs Shiv Shankar Mishra

Ram Narayan Sahu Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Geeta Prakash Vs Gend Bai

Manoj Kumar Gubrelay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Kumar Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Kumar Verma Vs Sanad Kumar (Dead) through Lrs