Brahma Meena Wife Of Jag Singh vs Anuraj Mothiya S/O Mahesh Chand on 23 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Brahma Meena Wife Of Jag Singh vs Anuraj Mothiya S/O Mahesh Chand on 23 April, 2025

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2025:RJ-JP:16944]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1/2025

Brahma Meena Wife Of Jag Singh, Resident Of Antarheda, Tehsil
Mahuva, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Anuraj Mothiya S/o Mahesh Chand, Father/o Mahesh
         Chand, Resident Of Kirwada, Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Gan-
         gapur City, Rajasthan.
2.       Sub Registrar Mahuva, Tehsil Mahuva, Distt. Dausa, Ra-
         jasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. H.V. Nandwana, Adv.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv.


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
                                  Judgment

Date of Judgment                         ::                         23/04/2025

This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-de-

fendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against

the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Additional District Judge,

Mahwa, District Dausa in Civil Suit No.40/2024, whereby the

application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has

been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent-

plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of the

sale deed dated 12.01.2015 and permanent injunction against the

defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that

defendant filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC before

the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff had not paid any court

fees and by way of the suit which was instituted in the year 2024,

(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:42:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16944] (2 of 3) [CR-1/2025]

the plaintiff wanted to cancel the sale deed dated 12.01.2015 after

a period of 9 years. Learned counsel for the defendant further

submits that as per Section 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, suit for

cancellation of the instrument should be filed within three years of

its execution. The trial court had committed an error in observing

that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact

and it would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, order

dated 27.09.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit

filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation.

Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon

the following judgment:-(1) Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Smt. Shahjahan Begum reported in 2015 (4) RLW 3567

(Raj.); (2) Ramisetty Venkatanna and Another Vs. Nasyam

Jamal Saheb and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC

521; (3) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)

Dead through legal representatives and Others reported in

(2020) 7 SCC 366; and C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Santhil

and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1330.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that

at the time of filing the suit stamps were not available, so he paid

the requisite court fees after leave of the court. Learned counsel

for the plaintiff further submits that the defendant had assured

him that he would get registered one plot situated at Jaipur in his

name but defendant had not complied with the same. So, the

present suit was filed after denial of the defendant. So, trial court

rightly held that the question of limitation being mixed question of

law and fact would be decided after taking the evidence of the

(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:42:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16944] (3 of 3) [CR-1/2025]

parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being de-

void of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the

plaintiff.

The plaintiff had paid the requisite court fees after the

stamps were made available. So far as, question of limitation is

concerned, plaintiff in his suit clearly mentioned that defendant

promised him to execute a registry of the plot situated at Jaipur in

his favour but the same was not complied with despite repeated

requests. Finally, when defendant denied to execute the same, the

plaintiff filed the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed. So,

in my considered opinion, trial court has rightly held that question

of the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and 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, which stands dismissed accordingly.

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

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH GULERIA /116

(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:42:14 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)