Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Smt. Galku Devi W/O Late Shri Ramkaran vs Smt. Prem Devi W/O Late Nanda Jat … on 31 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:29132]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 121/2022
1. Smt. Galku Devi W/o Late Shri Ramkaran, Resident Of
Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj)
2. Chhagan Son Of Late Shri Ugmaram Son Of Late Shri
Ramkaran, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, Dis-
trict Ajmer (Raj)
3. Ratan Son Of Late Shri Ugmaram Son Of Late Shri
Ramkaran, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, Dis-
trict Ajmer (Raj)
4. Ranglal Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran, Resident Of Village
Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj)
5. Madanlal Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District
Ajmer (Raj)
6. Bardilal Son Of Bhanwarlal Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran,
Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer
(Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Prem Devi W/o Late Nanda Jat, Aged About 63
Years, Resident Of Dand Ki Dhani, Dadiya, Tehsil Arai,
District Ajmer (Raj)
2. Balram Son Of Late Shri Nanda Jat, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Dand Ki Dhani, Dadiya, Tehsil Arai, District
Ajmer (Raj)
3. Hemraj Son Of Late Shri Nanda Jat, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Dand Ki Dhani, Dadiya, Tehsil Arai, District
Ajmer (Raj)
----Respondents-Plantiffs
4. Sub Registrar Arai, District Ajmer (Raj)
—-Proforma Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Batra, G C with
Ms. Poonam Rao, Adv. &
Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29132] (2 of 4) [CR-121/2022]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
31/07/2025
This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated
11.04.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2,
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for short ‘the trial Court’), in civil suit
No. 8/2021 titled as “Prem Devi and Ors. Vs. Galku Devi and Ors.”
by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the
defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent
Nos. 1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit
under Order VII Rule 1 CPC and for the Specific Performance of
the agreement dated 22.06.2001 and 12.12.2001 and permanent
injunction in which defendants filed an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 11.04.2022
dismissed the application filed by the defendants.
Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the suit
filed by the plaintiffs was time barred because father of the
plaintiffs had filed a suit under Sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act in which defendants filed written statement on
14.11.2006 and clearly mentioned that agreement was never
executed. So, the plaintiff had knowledge with regard to denial of
the agreement in the year 2006 but they had not filed suit within
limitation. To create limitation, they had given notice before filing
the suit, of which defendants had given the reply that in
previously instituted revenue suit written statement was filed by
the defendants and it was clearly mentioned that agreement was
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29132] (3 of 4) [CR-121/2022]
never executed. So, present suit filed by the plaintiffs is time
barred but the trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that it is
a matter of evidence. So, the petition filed by the defendants be
allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed being time
barred.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the following judgments:-
1. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D)
Thr. Lrs. & Ors. in civil appeal No. 9519/2019 decided on
09.07.2020.
2. Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb &
Ors. in civil appeal No. 2717/2023 decided on 28.04.2023.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted
that father of the plaintiffs had filed a revenue suit of which they
had no knowledge. So, limitation was commenced from the date
of reply of the notice given by defendants. So, the trial Court
rightly came to the conclusion that point of limitation would be
decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present revision
petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to
be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiffs.
It is an admitted position that previous suit was filed by the
father of the plaintiffs, in which defendants filed a written
statement and clearly denied the execution of the so-called
agreement in the year 2006. So, in my considered opinion, cause
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29132] (4 of 4) [CR-121/2022]
of action was accrued to the plaintiffs in the year 2006 for filing of
the suit for specific performance but they had filed the suit in the
year 2021. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred. In my
considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in
dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition
filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed;
order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside and
the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being time barred.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/44
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)