Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Adeetya Sharma S/O Late Shri Mahesh … vs Vivekanand Mishr Son Of Lt. Shri … on 30 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:28622]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 369/2024
Adeetya Sharma S/o Late Shri Mahesh Sharma, R/o 62,
Neelkanth Colony, Near Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Vivekanand Mishr Son Of Lt. Shri Kailashchand Mishr,
Aged About 56 Years, R/o Shikshak Colony, Gupteshwar
Road, Dausa, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.
----Respondent-Plaintiff
2. Satishchand S/o Krishanchand Sharma, R/o Jaipur At
Present 4/1065C, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Pramod Sharma S/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o Krishnachand
W/o Lt. Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Plot No. 11, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Ms. Vandana Sharma D/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o
Krishnachand W/o Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur.
5. Sameer Sharma S/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o Krishnachand
W/o Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Plot
No. 11, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur.
6. Sadhna Sharma D/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o Krishnachand
W/o Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Plot
No.11 Subhash Nagar, Jaipur At Present Residing At Iv -D,
112 Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Raj.
7. Smt. Tara Sharma D/o Nathulal W/o Shri Ramakant
Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
8. Sm.t Ambika Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o Shri
Mukesh Joshi, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani
Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
9. Smt. Kusum Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o Shri
Prakashchand Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby
Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
10. Smt. Gayatri Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o Nikesh
Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28622] (2 of 5) [CR-369/2024]
11. Smt. Snehlata Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o
Blamukund Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby
Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
12. Harish Bhamoriya S/o Nathulal Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth
Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
13. Smt. Usha Sharma W/o Lt. Shri Mahesh Sharma, R/o 62
Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur.
14. Smt. Aastha Sharma D/o Lt. Shri Mahesh Sharma W/o
Himanshu Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby
Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
15. Chandresh S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, R/o Subhash
Colony, Shree Ramkaran Joshi Govt. Sr. Sec. School,
Dausa, Tehsil And District Dausa.
16. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Dausa.
17. Land Holder Tehsildar, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.
18. Sub Registrar, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.
19. Municipal Council, Dausa Through Commissioner
Municipal Council, Dausa.
—-Proforma Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv.
Ms. Yashika Vijayvargia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 30/07/2025
This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 of the CPC
against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate Dausa, District Dausa (for short ‘the trial
Court’) in case No. 112/2024 titled as “Vivekanand Mishr vs.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28622] (3 of 5) [CR-369/2024]
Satishchand and Ors.”, by which the trial Court dismissed the
application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that
respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit
for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction
against the defendant as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 19 in which
defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
mentioning therein that Power of Attorney Holder-Chandresh
Sharma had no right to sell the disputed plot (mentioned in the
para No. 5 of the plaint) to plaintiff’s father Kailashchandra Mishr
on 20.01.1997 through agreement because Krishanchandra
purportedly executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the
respondent No. 15- Chandresh Sharma and thereafter,
Krishanchandra expired on 22.05.1994. So, said Power of Attorney
became invalid. So, plaintiff’s father Kailashchandra Mishr had also
no right to sell these plots to his son-plaintiff on 16.11.2000 by
agreement. So, Kailashchandra Mishr could not give a better title
than he himself possessed. So, no cause of action accrued to the
plaintiff for filing the present suit but the trial Court vide order
dated 14.11.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the
defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and
the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside.
Learned senior counsel for the defendant has placed reliance
upon the following judgments-:
1. Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh
(Dead) by LRs in civil appeal No. 2960/2019 decided on
13.03.2019.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28622] (4 of 5) [CR-369/2024]
2. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D)
thr. Lrs & Ors. in civil appeal No. 9519/2019 decided on
09.07.2020.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that
trial Court while dismissing the application rightly came to the
conclusion that objection raised by the defendant is to be decided
after the evidence of the parties and therefore, suit cannot be
dismissed at this stage. So, the petition filed by the defendant
deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff and perused the impugned order.
It is an admitted position that Krishanchandra has executed
Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No. 15-Chandresh
Sharma. Krishanchandra expired on 22.05.1994. So, said Power
of Attorney is invalid for sale of the plot after the death of
Krishanchandra. As per the contents of the plaint, Kailashchandra
purchased the disputed plot by agreement dated 20.01.1997 and
subsequently, he sold the said plot to his son-plaintiff by
agreement dated 16.11.2000. At the time of execution of
agreement dated 20.01.1997, said Power of Attorney was not
valid on account of death of the Krishanchandra. So,
Kailashchandra had not get any right with regard to the disputed
plot and he had no right to sell the same to his son on
16.11.2000. So, in my considered opinion, no cause of action
accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit but the trial Court
had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:28622] (5 of 5) [CR-369/2024]
defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be
allowed.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed;
the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside
and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of
action.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/90
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)