Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Maithli Sharan Sharma S/O Late Sh. … vs Ashok Vihar Vikas Samiti Through Its … on 30 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:18069]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 20/2024
Maithli Sharan Sharma S/o Late Sh. Bhanwarlal Sharma, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o Mohit Farm, 200 Feet Bypass, Dronpuri
Road, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ashok Vihar Vikas Samiti Through Its President Niranjan
Lal Soni S/o Nathuram Soni, R/o 52, Madhav Nagar, Near
Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur.
2. Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran, Jaipur Through Its Deputy
Commissioner, Zone-5, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
3. New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited
Through Its Mantri, At Farsoiya Market, Bapu Bazar,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Parashar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O P Mishra, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment :: 30/04/2025
This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC
against the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge &
Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for short
‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.140/2016 titled as “Ashok Vihar
Vikas Samiti Vs. Maithlikaran & Ors., whereby the application filed
by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent
No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration,
cancellation of the Will and permanent injunction against the
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:43:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18069] (2 of 4) [CR-20/2024]
defendant in which defendant filed an application under Order 7
Rule 11 read with 151 CPC before the trial court and the trial
Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 dismissed the application filed
by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further
submits that the present suit is related to agricultural land and
plaintiff challenged the registered document in which he had to
show his interest and title. Learned counsel for the defendant also
submits that plaintiff failed to prima facie establish is interest in
the disputed land. Present suit is related to agricultural land. So,
as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, only revenue Court had
jurisdiction to try it. He also submits that without getting declare
his khatedari rights, plaintiff had no right to challenge the said
Will. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the
order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon
the following judgment:-
(1) Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) thr. Natural
Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors.
reported in 2019 (1) RRT 291;
(2) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers
and Ors. reported in 2004 (8) Supreme 290;
(3) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D)
Thr. Lrs. And Ors. reported in 2020 AIR SC 3310;
(4) Bagaram & Ors. Vs. Balkishan @ Balramkishan & Anr.
reported in 2019 (2) RRT 1039;
(5) T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal and Anr. reported in
1977 AIR SC 2421.
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:43:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18069] (3 of 4) [CR-20/2024]
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that
plaintiff in his plaint clearly mentioned that defendant had wrongly
got executed the Will in his favour by the deceased Mohan Singh.
Disputed land was converted, so, presently the said land is not an
agricultural land. He further submits that while deciding the
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments of
the plaint are required to be looked in. He further submits that,
prior to this application, the defendant filed two applications under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the same were dismissed by the trial
Court and against dismissal of the said applications, defendant
filed revision petitions and the same were also dismissed by this
Court. He also submits that defendant wanted to cause delay in
the proceedings and presently matter is in the plaintiff’s evidence.
So, the petition filed by the defendant be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the
following judgments:-
(1) Maithli Sharan Sharma Vs. Ashok Vihar Vikas Samiti &
Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 48/2017 decided on
09.03.2022;
(2) Maithli Sharan Sharma Vs. Ashok Vihar Vikas Samiti &
Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 169/2019 decided on
30.07.2019.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that plaintiff challenged the so-
called Will which was executed in favour of the defendant. The
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:43:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18069] (4 of 4) [CR-20/2024]
present application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC is the defendant’s third application. Previous applications
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant were dismissed
by the trial Court and against dismissal of the said applications,
revision petitions filed by the defendant were also dismissed by
this Court. Defendant wanted to cause delay in the present suit.
So, in my considered opinion, trial Court rightly dismissed the
application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the
defendant deserves to be dismissed on cost.
Accordingly, the present civil revision petition filed by the
defendant is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by
the defendant with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority,
Jaipur.
Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/87
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:43:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link