Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Prem Devi Meena D/O Badri Narain Meena vs Anita Meena W/O Bharat Lal Meena on 16 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:26338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 52/2025
Prem Devi Meena D/o Badri Narain Meena, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o 14, Roop Vihar Colony, Natata Road, Nangal Susawtan,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner/Defendant No.1
Versus
1. Anita Meena W/o Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Gram Post Hudla, Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa, At
Present R/o Plot No. 68, Arwind Nagar, Ambedkar Circle
Ke Pas, Cbi Colony Ke Pas, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
---Respondent-Plaintiff
2. Alok Alias Sonu Khandelwal Chariman/guardian Bhairav
Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, Office C-197,
Subhash Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondent/defendant No.2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment :: 16/07/2025
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) under Section 115
CPC against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Additional
Civil Judge No. 19, Chaksu, Jaipur Metro-I (for short ‘the trial
court’) in Civil Suit No.53/2024, whereby the trial court dismissed
the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11
read with Section 151 CPC.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that
respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:01:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26338] (2 of 4) [CR-52/2025]
permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 as well as
respondent-defendant No.2 (for short ‘defendant No.2’) in which
the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read
with Section 151 CPC but the trial Court vide order 29.11.2024
dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further submits that
the defendant No.2 had purchased the disputed land by
agreement to sell dated 16.06.1998. The said agreement did not
give any title to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had purchased the
disputed land by registered sale deed.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that the
plaintiff had filed the suit in the capacity of member of defendant
No.2- Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Defendant No.2 had
challenged the proceedings under Section 90A of the Land
Revenue Act but JDA Tribunal had dismissed it vide order dated
30.07.2024. The defendant No.2 also filed an appeal against
defendant No.1 before the Divisional Commissioner in relation to
the proceedings under Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act. So,
suit was barred by res judicata and thus was not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further submits that
after the proceedings under Section 90-A of Land Revenue Act,
the said land is owned by local authorities. So, the plaintiff had no
right and title over it. The plaintiff had alternate remedy to file the
suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed but
simplicitor suit for injunction was filed. So, the suit was not
maintainable but the trial Court committed an error in dismissing
the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, the petition filed
by the defendant No.1 be allowed, the order dated 29.11.2024
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:01:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26338] (3 of 4) [CR-52/2025]
passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the
plaintiff be dismissed for want of cause of action and jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has placed reliance
on the following judgments:-
(1) Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and Ors.,
reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692.
(2) The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B.
Gunashekhar and Ors., reported in (2025) SC R94.
(3) K Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC
Online SC 238
(4) State of Rajashtan and ors. Vs. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt.
Ltd.,reported in 2012(4) WLN 117
(5) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra)(D) Thr. Lrs
and Ors., reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 562.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and
submitted that suit was not barred by res judicata because JDA
Tribunal had dismissed the proceedings under Section 90-A of the
Land Revenue Act for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff has
possession over the disputed land, so she simply wanted
permanent injunction against the defendant. Objections raised by
the defendant No.1 would be decided after the evidence of the
parties. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed
by the defendant No.1. So, the present petition being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendant No.1 as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff and perused the impugned order.
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:01:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26338] (4 of 4) [CR-52/2025]
While dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1,
learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the
objections raised by the defendant No.1 would be decided after
the evidence of the parties. Suit filed by the plaintiff was not
barred by res judicata because JDA Tribunal had dismissed the
challenge to the proceedings under Section 90-A of the Land
Revenue Act for want of jurisdiction. So, in my considered opinion,
the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable
to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Ritu/82
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:01:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link