[2025:RJ-JP:17555] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 74/2022 Kailash Prasad @ Kailash Chand S/o Shri Durgaprasad, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Panditpura, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Kailash Chand, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) 2. Hariom S/o Shri Durgaprasad, Aged About 51 Years, Residing At Panditpura, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. 3. Laxmi Devi Wife Of Shri Durgaprasad, Residing At Panditpura, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. 4. Sub Registrar, Baswa Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Baswa, District Dausa, (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ramit Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. G. S. Gouttam, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Meena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 25/04/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bandikui, District Dausa in Civil Suit No.2/2021, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:17555] (2 of 3) [CR-74/2022] Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of the contract dated 11.09.2009 and permanent injunction in which defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but trial court vide order dated 09.02.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that defendant No.1 in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC clearly mentioned that present suit was time barred but trial court wrongly dismissed the application filed by him on the ground that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it would be decided after taking evidence of the parties. So, order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the trial court be set aside, petition filed by the defendant No.1 be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being time barred. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and submits that defendant No.1 had not honoured the so-called agreement. So, plaintiff had given the notice to him. So, trial court rightly ordered that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it would be decided after taking evidence of the parties. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.1 being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:17555] (3 of 3) [CR-74/2022] By way of application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, defendant No.1 raised the issue of limitation. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1 because issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and it would be decided after taking evidence of the parties. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.1 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 /93