[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 /0 7 /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 [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 [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