[2025:RJ-JP:18218] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 145/2024 Ramjilal S/o Late Panna, R/o Bajhera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Raghuveer S/o Ramkhiladi, R/o Bajhera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Kanhiaya S/o Ramkhiladi, R/o Bajhera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) 3. Chhote S/o Ramkhiladi, R/o Bajhera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 01 /0 5 /2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.147/2023, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondents- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for compliance of the compromise dated 16.11.2015 and permanent injunction in which defendant filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court but trial court vide order dated 08.11.2023 [2025:RJ-JP:18218] (2 of 3) [CR-145/2024] dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that by way of the present suit plaintiffs wanted to comply with the compromise dated 16.11.2015. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the suit for compliance of the compromise should be filed before the Additional Collector, Bharatpur. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiffs had not given any notice regarding compliance of the compromise. As per the compromise, the said sale deed was to be executed upto June, 2016, so, suit for compliance of the compromise could be filed upto June, 2019 but plaintiffs had filed the present suit in the year 2023, which is time barred. So, order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee in Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2012 decided on 03.07.2012. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that compromise was arrived at between the parties in revenue suit. The plaintiffs had not sought any relief regarding execution of the revenue court’s order. By way of the present suit, the plaintiffs wanted to comply with the compromise arrived at between the [2025:RJ-JP:18218] (3 of 3) [CR-145/2024] parties. As per the compromise, sale deed was to be executed upto June, 2016 and plaintiffs were ready in willing to execute the same. He further submits that they had given notice and trial court rightly came to the conclusion that civil court had jurisdiction to try it and also rightly came to the conclusion that issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. While deciding the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that for compliance of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit and regarding limitation, it was a mixed question of law and fact. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 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 GULERIA /114