[2025:RJ-JP:32757] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 115/2025 Naveen Kumar Modi S/o Shri Madan Lal Modi Father/o Madan Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner-Defendant No.2 Versus 1. Bhagwan Sahay S/o Shri Bhikha Ram Father/o Bhikha, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Budha Wale, Presently Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa (Rajasthan) 2. 2/1 2/2 2/3 Gaurav Kumar Gupta S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 47 Years, Since Deceased Mamta Devi W/o Gaurav Kumawr Gupta, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa Himani Modi D/o Gaurav Kumar Gupta, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa Bhawav Modi S/o Gaurav Kumar Gupta, Aged About 17 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Mamta Devi W/o Gaurav Kumar Gupta, R/o Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa 3. Devendra Kumar Joshi S/o Late Premnath, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa Presently Residing Sangam Parisar, Ward No. 23, Bandikui, Jangir, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa (Rajasthan) 4. Smt. Yamuna Joshi W/o Shri Premnath, Aged About 84 Years, R/o Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa Presently Residing Sangam Parisar, Ward No. 23, Bandikui, Jangir, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa (Rajasthan) 5. The Sub Registrar, Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa 6. The Tehsildar, Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa 7. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Land Holder, District Collector Dausa, District Dausa (Rajasthan) ---Defendant Nos.1,3 to 7/Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:32757] (2 of 4) [CR-115/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 21/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Mahwa, District Dausa (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.59/2024, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.08.2024 and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent-defendant Nos.2 to 7 (for short ‘the defendant Nos.2 to 7’) in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 29.03.2025 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that as per the averments mentioned in the plaint, the disputed property was purchased by Bhagwan Sahay and Ramswaroop in the year 1966 for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- and since then they have been in possession of the disputed property but the defendant Nos.3 and 4 [2025:RJ-JP:32757] (3 of 4) [CR-115/2025] sold the disputed property to the defendant and the defendant No.1-Gaurav.710 Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit and he has also paid the insufficient court fees. For the cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.08.2024, the plaintiff should have paid the court fees based on the valuation of the sale deed and not as per Section (7) (A) of The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order dated 29.03.2025. It is an admitted position that the trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC committed an error because the plaintiff should have paid the court fees as per the valuation of the sale deed dated 20.08.2024 and not as per Section (7) (A) of The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. Regarding the objections of limitation and cause of action, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that these objections would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be partly allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:32757] (4 of 4) [CR-115/2025] The petition filed by the defendant is partly allowed and the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the trial courts is partly set- aside. The trial court is directed to take the court fees as per the valuation of the sale deed dated 20.08.2024. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/103