[2025:RJ-JP:26969] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 143/2024 Govind Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhansilal Sharma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 533/40, Navhaal Ki Kuthi, Holidhara, Laxmi Chowk, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Defendant No. 3/Petitioner Versus 1. Yash Sharma S/o Late Shri Brijmohan Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 533/40, Navhaal Ki Kuthi, Holidhara, Laxmi Chowk, Ajmer (Raj.) And Presently Residing At Flat No. 210, Mahima Heritage, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Plaintiff/Respondent 2. Smt Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Bansilal Sharma, R/o 533/40, Navhaal Ki Kuthi, Holidhara, Laxmi Chowk, Ajmer (Raj.) 3. Ashok Sharma S/o Late Shri Bansilal Sharma, R/o 533/40, Navhaal Ki Kuthi, Holidhara, Laxmi Chowk, Ajmer (Raj.) 4. Keshav Sharma S/o Shri Late Brijmohan Sharma, R/o 533/40, Navhaal Ki Kuthi, Holidhara, Laxmi Chowk, Ajmer (Raj.) 5. Smt. Chanda Devi W/o Shri Brijmohan Sharma, R/o 533/40, Navhaal Ki Kuthi, Holidhara, Laxmi Chowk, Ajmer (Raj.) 6. Smt. Vishnu D/o Late Bansilal Sharma, R/o 533/40, Navhaal Ki Kuthi, Holidhara, Laxmi Chowk, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Proforma Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pavan Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 18/07/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:26969] (2 of 3) [CR-143/2024] This civil revision petition has been filed petitioner-defendant No. 3 (for short 'the defendant No. 3') under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 11/2023 titled as "Yash Sharma Vs. Shanti Devi & Ors." whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by defendant No. 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 3 submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendant No. 3 and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in which defendant No. 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mentioning therein that the suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred because father of the plaintiff died on 14.07.2008, so cause of action with regard to partition accrued on 14.07.2008 but the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2023. He further submits that as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, suit for declaration is to be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues and as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the suit for possession of immovable property should be filed within 12 years but plaintiff filed the suit after a lapse of 15 years. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Therefore, the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No. 3 and submits that in the suit filed by him he mentioned that plaintiff had a room in the disputed property. He also submits that point of limitation is [2025:RJ-JP:26969] (3 of 3) [CR-143/2024] a mixed question of law and facts, so it would only be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No. 3. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant No. 3 deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No. 3 and learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that point of limitation would only be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No. 3. So, the petition filed by the defendant No. 3 being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/82