[2025:RJ-JP:29702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 84/2022 1. Bharat Singh S/o Shribux Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kherli Pinchot, Tehsil Malakhera, Distt-Alwar (Raj.). 2. Charat Singh S/o Shribux Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Kherli Pinchot, Tehsil Malakhera, Distt-Alwar (Raj.). 3. Dashrath Singh S/o Shribux Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kherli Pinchot, Tehsil Malakhera, Distt-Alwar (Raj.). 4. Ranvir Signh S/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Kherli Pinchot, Tehsil Malakhera, Distt-Alwar (Raj.). 5. Nagendra Singh S/o Shri Charat Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Kherli Pinchot, Tehsil Malakhera, Distt-Alwar (Raj.). 6. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Kherli Pinchot, Tehsil Malakhera, Distt-Alwar (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Pritam Singh, R/o Village Kherli Pinchot Tehsil Malakhera, Distt-Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipul Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajpal Yogi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 05/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Malakhera, Alwar in Civil Suit No.34/78/2021, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:29702] (2 of 3) [CR-84/2022] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which plaintiff had claimed the disputed property of his own on the basis of agreement to sell dated 27.01.1987 executed by Mithhan Lal S/o Kanhaiya Lal in his favour. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that disputed property was not Mithhan Lal and he was only Pujari in the temple. So, he had no right to sell the disputed property and disputed property belongs to the temple. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff and he had not sought any possession of the disputed property. So, suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable but trial court vide order dated 18.02.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, petition filed by the defendants be allowed and order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that disputed property belongs to the temple or not, is a matter of evidence and on account of the agreement, whether the plaintiff got any right or not, is also a matter of evidence. So, trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, present petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:29702] (3 of 3) [CR-84/2022] It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed a suit on account of agreement executed by Mithhan Lal in his favour on 27.01.1987. Trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants clearly mentioned that disputed property belongs to the temple or not, is a matter of evidence. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /61