Birdi Chand S/O Late Shri Bhoora Lal Ji … vs Mukti Lal S/O Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal … on 24 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Birdi Chand S/O Late Shri Bhoora Lal Ji … vs Mukti Lal S/O Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal … on 24 April, 2025

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2025:RJ-JP:17051]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 14/2022

Birdi Chand S/o Late Shri Bhoora Lal Ji Sankhla, R/o 4/11
Khanna Colony Near Geeta Bhawa, Beawar.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Mukti Lal S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat, R/o
         Municipal No. 5/4 East Nehru Nagar Gali No. 1 House No.
         38-39, Mutha Bohra Colony, Nehru Ngar, Beawar District
         Ajmer Raj.
2.       State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector Ajmer,
         Office At District Collector Ajmer (Raj.)
3.       Sub - Registrar, District Ajmer, Office At Sub- Registrar
         Office Beawar District Ajmer (Raj.)
4.       Municipal    Council        Beawar          Through       Commissioner,
         Municipal Council Beawar Office At Municipal Council
         Beawar, District Ajmer. (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None Present for respondent No.1.

Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Adv. for
respondent No.3.

Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, Adv. for
respondent No.4.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 24/04/2025

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-

defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated

15.11.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1,

Beawar, District Ajmer in Civil Suit No.21/2021, whereby the

application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

(Downloaded on 29/04/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17051] (2 of 3) [CR-14/2022]

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent

No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the

defendants for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.06.2014,

declaring the same as null and void, permanent and mandatory

injunction in which defendant filed an application under Order 7

Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but trial court vide order dated

15.11.2021 dismissed the application filed by the defendant.

Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that disputed

property was purchased by the defendant on 18.06.2014 on a sale

consideration of Rs.17,30,000/- and defendant had paid the entire

sale consideration amount to the plaintiff by three different

cheques. Sale deed was executed by plaintiff and he had done

signature as well as put thumb impression in the presence of the

witnesses and also handed over the possession of the disputed

property to the defendant but plaintiff filed present suit for

cancellation of so-called agreement after a lapse of 7 years on

bogus and fictitious ground. He had knowledge regarding sale

deed in the year 2014 when it was executed but trial court

wrongly came to the conclusion that the question of limitation is a

mixed question of law and fact. Suit for cancellation of sale deed

ought to have been filed within 3 years of its execution. So, order

dated 15.11.2021 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit

filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being time barred.

Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. Vs.

Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. (Arising out of SLP (C)

No.13459/2024) decided on 15.04.2025 and (2) Dahiben

(Downloaded on 29/04/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17051] (3 of 3) [CR-14/2022]

Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead reported in

(2020) 7 SCC 366.

Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of

plaintiff.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order.

It is an admitted position that sale deed was executed by

plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 18.06.2014. For cancellation

of sale deed, plaintiff filed the present suit after a lapse of 7 years

and he wanted to create limitation by adducing the fraudulent

transaction between him and defendant. The trial court had

committed error in dismissing the application filed by the

defendant. So, present petition filed by the defendant deserves to

be allowed.

The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed.

The order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the trial court is set aside

and suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being time barred.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /96

(Downloaded on 29/04/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)