Smt. Kaushlaya Devi W/O Samrathsingh vs Ramdev S/O Gyarsa on 24 July, 2025

0
4


Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Smt. Kaushlaya Devi W/O Samrathsingh vs Ramdev S/O Gyarsa on 24 July, 2025

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2025:RJ-JP:27580]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 123/2024

Smt. Kaushlaya Devi W/o Samrathsingh, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of Nasirda, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk At Present
Resident Of Kuchalwada Road Tower Wali Gali, Kuchalwada Tehsil
Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Ramdev S/o Gyarsa, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of
         Ghad, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.).
2.       Sheoji S/o Hardeva, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of
         Ghad, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.). At Present
         Resident Of Muh Masjid Ki Gali Ke Pass, Indra Gandhi
         Nagar, Kota (Raj).
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : None

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment

Date of Judgment :: 24/07/2025

This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-

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

against the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by Civil Judge, Duni,

District Tonk in Civil Suit (CIS) No.35/2023, whereby the

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

Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent

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

performance of agreement and cancellation of the sale deed

against the defendant as well as respondent No.2 in which

defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:51:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27580] (2 of 3) [CR-123/2024]

Section 151 CPC but trial court vide its order dated 07.02.2024

wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant.

Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that trial

court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by

the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits

that as per contention of the plaintiff, he had purchased the

disputed land from Sheoji in the year 1992 but he filed the suit in

the year 2023 after a lapse of 31 years. The said disputed land

was purchased by the defendant in a sale consideration of

Rs.1,99,000/- and present value of the said land is more than

Rs.10,00,000/-. So, civil court has no jurisdiction to try it. The

plaintiff had not paid the requisite court fees for cancellation of the

sale deed, so, trial court had committed an error in dismissing the

application filed by the defendant. So, order dated 07.02.2024

passed by the trial court be set aside and plaint filed by the

plaintiff be dismissed.

Despite service of notice no one has put in appearance for

plaintiff(s).

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned judgment.

It is an admitted position that Sheoji had executed an

agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1992. The

said agreement to sell did not bear any specific date for its

execution. As per the contention of the plaintiff, he asked on

number of occasions to Sheoji for registration of the sale deed but

he assured him to get it registered later on but instead of he

executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant without

informing Sheoji. So, in my considered opinion, the limitation for

(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:51:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27580] (3 of 3) [CR-123/2024]

filing the suit would be commenced after denial and plaintiff

wanted to cancel the sale deed, in which he was not a party. The

question of limitation as well as insufficiency of the court fees

would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, in

my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error

in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant. 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/63

(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:51:32 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here