[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sanjay Bardiya S/O Shri Hansraj Bardiya vs Kaluram S/O Parsa Ram on 4 August, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:29562]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 143/2022
1. Sanjay Bardiya S/o Shri Hansraj Bardiya, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Jhakoreshwar Mard, Near Madhosingh Circle,
Banipark, Jaipur.
2. Ganesh Narayan Raika, S/o Shri Harsukh Rai Raika, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Near Sevadasji Ki
Bagichi, Reengus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners-Defendants
Versus
1. Kaluram S/o Parsa Ram, R/o Ward No. 2, Reengus, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan).
2. Pokharmal S/o Shri Devaram, R/o Behind Rswm, Aasiwalo
Ki Dhani, Ward No. 1, Jetusar, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District
Sikar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents-Plaintiffs
3. Patwari Halka Patwar Bhawan, Reengus, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan).
4. Sub-Registrar, Registrar Office, Srimadhopur, District
Sikar (Rajasthan).
5. Land Holder, Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Srimadhopur, District
Sikar (Rajasthan).
6. Nagar Palika Reengus, Through Executive Officer, Nagar
Palika Reengus, District Sikar (Rajasthan).
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Sikar.
—-Respondents/Defendants
8. Aditya Jhunjhunuwala S/o Shri Vinay Kumar
Jhunjhunuwala, R/o D-104, Poonam Apartment, Dr.
Annai, Basant Road, Anita Mall, Worli, Mumbai-400018.
—-Proforma Respondents-Defendant
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Batra, G C with
Ms. Poonam Rao, Adv. &
Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:33:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29562] (2 of 4) [CR-143/2022]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/08/2025
This civil revision petition had been filed by the petitioners-
defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 27.05.2022
passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Reengus, Sikar (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit
No. 28/2019 titled as “Kaluram & Ors. Vs. Sanjay & 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 and 2 had filed a civil suit in the representative capacity for
declaration of the sale deed dated 26.07.2018, Power of Attorney
dated 07.03.2013 as null and void and permanent injunction in
which they had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
before the trial Court, but the trial Court vide order dated
27.05.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the
defendants.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that
plaintiffs had challenged the sale deed dated 26.07.2018, the
value of which was Rs. 48,50,000/- but they had not sought any
relief in relation to the declaration that the disputed land is for the
use of public at large. They also challenged the Power of Attorney
dated 07.03.2013 to declare the same as a null and void and the
suit was filed in the year 2019. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is
barred by limitation but the trial Court had committed an error in
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:33:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29562] (3 of 4) [CR-143/2022]
dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the order
dated 27.05.2022 passed by the trial Court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that
plaintiffs filed the suit in the representative capacity. Disputed
property is a public property. None has authority to sale it. So, the
plaintiffs filed the suit to declare the sale deed and Power of
Attorney as null and void. Plaintiffs is not party in sale deed. So,
they rightly filed the court fees as per the provision of Section 24-
A of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act. So, the trial Court rightly
dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Therefore, the
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 suit filed by the plaintiffs is in
the representative capacity. They had also sought the permission
from the Court for the purpose of cause of action. They very well
pleaded that when they knew the disputed sale deed 26.07.2018
then they procured the certified copies and filed the present suit.
So, in my considered opinion, it cannot be said that suit filed by
the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Plaintiffs wanted to challenge
the sale deed value of which Rs. 48,50,000/- but they had paid
the court fees as per the provision of Section 24-A of the
Rajasthan Court Fees Act. In my considered opinion, they had to
pay the court fees as per the value of the sale deed. So, present
petition deserves to be partly allowed.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:33:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29562] (4 of 4) [CR-143/2022]
Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is partly
allowed; the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the trial Court is
set aside to the extent of court fees and trial Court is directed to
take the requisite court fees as per the value of the sale deed from
the plaintiffs and after that suit be returned to the plaintiffs for
filing the same before the competent court.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/45
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:33:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link