Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Praveen Shrishrimal S/O Late Shri … vs Smt. Sushila Devi W/O Late Shri Ramniwas … on 23 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:27332]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 130/2025
Praveen Shrishrimal S/o Late Shri Tejraj, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Mahaveer Bazar, Opposite City Dispensary, Inside Mewari
Gate, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) Presently At H. No. 67-A,
First Floor, Kamla Nagar, North Delhi 110007
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Late Shri Ramniwas Ji, Aged About
72 Years, R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah Temple,
Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
2. Shri Sampatraj S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Ji, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah Temple, Beawar,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Shri Prakash S/o Shri Ramniwas Ji, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah Temple, Beawar,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
4. Manjulata D/o Late Shri Ramniwas Ji, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah Temple, Beawar,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
5. Pinky D/o Late Shri Ramniwasji, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah Temple, Beawar,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
6. Shri Prem Kishoare S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Ji, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah Temple, Beawar,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
7. Shri Yaduvendra S/o Shri Prem Kishore, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah Temple, Beawar,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
8. Smt. Nirmala @ Radha D/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Teliyan Chopar, Near Navgrah
Temple, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
9. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehsildar,
Beawar (Raj.)
10. Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Beawar (Raj.)
11. District Collector, Ajmer (Raj.)
12. Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Late Shri Tejraj, R/o Mahaveer
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:48:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27332] (2 of 5) [CR-130/2025]
Bazar, Near City Dispensary, Inside Mewari Gate, Beawar,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
13. Shri Ashish S/o Late Smt. Sangeeta D/o Shri Tejraj, R/o
Mahaveer Bazar, Near City Dispensary, Inside Mewari
Gate, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
14. Shri Arpit S/o Late Smt. Sangeeta D/o Shri Tejraj, R/o
Mahaveer Bazar, Near City Dispensary, Inside Mewari
Gate, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Rohtagi, Adv with
Mr. Harshit Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment :: 23/07/2025
This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC
against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Additional Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.3, Beawar in Civil Suit
No.55/2023, whereby the application filed by the defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent
Nos.1 to 8-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for
specific performance of the agreement dated 18.10.1987 and
permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent
Nos.9 to 14 mentioning therein that an agreement was executed
by Tejraj in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The defendant
filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial
court to the effect that suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:48:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27332] (3 of 5) [CR-130/2025]
limitation but trial court vide its order dated 10.03.2025 wrongly
dismissed the application filed by the defendant.
Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that Tejraj
had expired in the year 2001. The agreement was executed on
18.10.1987 whereas the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year
2023 i.e. after a lapse of 36 years. He further submits that the
plaintiffs had given a notice on 12.12.2022 after the period of
limitation.
Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that
plaintiffs had cleverly drafted the plaint in which they mentioned
that during the life-time of Tejraj, plaintiffs asked him for specific
performance of the agreement and permanent injunction and he
assured them in this regard. After death of Tejraj, his legal heirs
also assured them but they had not mentioned any specific date
regarding reminder for the specific performance of the agreement
and permanent injunction, so, suit filed by the plaintiffs is time
barred. So, order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the trial court be
set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed being barred
by limitation.
Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon
the following judgments:- (1) Sabbir (Dead) Through LRs Vs.
Anjuman (Since Deceased) Through LRs in Civil Appeal
No.6075 of 2023 decided on 22.09.2023; (2) Nikhila Divyang
Mehta & Another Vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Others reported in
2025 INSC 485; (3) The Correspondence, RBANMS
Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar & Another in Civil
Appeal No.5200 of 2025 decided on 16.04.2025.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:48:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27332] (4 of 5) [CR-130/2025]
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that
trial court while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that question of
limitation would be decided after taking evidence of the parties
because it was a mixed question of law and fact. At this stage, it
cannot be said that suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred.
During the life-time of Tejraj and after his death, the plaintiffs
requested the legal heirs of Tejraj for specific performance of the
agreement dated 18.10.1987. Finally they denied and notice was
given to them on 12.12.2022. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is
within limitation.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the
defendant can take the objections in the written statement, which
would be decided after taking evidence of the parties. So, the
present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is
liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Urvashiben and Another Vs. Krishnakant
Manuprasad Trivedi reported in (2019) 13 SCC 372.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiffs.
It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs wanted specific
performance of the agreement dated 18.10.1987 and permanent
injunction. In their plaint, they mentioned that they asked Tejraj
for specific performance of the agreement and permanent
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:48:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27332] (5 of 5) [CR-130/2025]
injunction during his life-time and after his death, they also asked
his legal heirs for specific performance of the agreement and
permanent injunction but they did not mention any specific date
regarding reminder in relation to the specific performance of the
agreement and permanent injunction. They did not mention the
date of death of Tejraj to bring the suit within the period of
limitation. They had given notice on 12.12.2022. So, in my
considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in
dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the
defendant because plaintiffs’ filed the suit after a lapse of 36 years
from the date of the agreement dated 18.10.1987. It cannot be
said that it was within the period of limitation. So, present petition
filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed.
The revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The
order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the trial court is set aside and
suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being barred by limitation.
Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH/30
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:48:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)