[2025:RJ-JP:19391] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6475/2025 1. Bhaskar Swami S/o Late Ramdayal Das, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 2. Harinarayan Swami S/o Shri Bhaskar Swami, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 3. Mohandas Swami S/o Shri Bhaskar Swami, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Shubham Swami S/o Chetan Swami, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Presently R/o Boraj Tehsil Mozamabad District Dudu Presently Jaipur 2. Vijaylaxmi S/o Chetan Swami Wife Of Dayaram, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Presently R/o Boraj Tehsil Mozamabad District Dudu Presently Jaipur 3. Ravikant Swami S/o Gopal Das Swami, Minor Through Mother Kusum Swami W/of Gopal Das Swami R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Presently R/o Boraj Tehsil Mozamabad District Dudu Presently Jaipur 4. Bhanuprakash S/o Gopal Das Swami., Minor Through Mother Kusum Swami W/of Gopal Das Swami R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Presently R/o Boraj Tehsil Mozamabad District Dudu Presently Jaipur 5. Labhanshi Dadupanthi Daughter Of Gopal Das Swami., Minor Through Mother Kusum Swami W/of Gopal Das Swami R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Presently R/o Boraj Tehsil Mozamabad District Dudu Presently Jaipur 6. Labhansh Swami S/o Gopal Das Swami., Minor Through Mother Kusum Swami W/of Gopal Das Swami R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Presently R/o Boraj Tehsil Mozamabad District Dudu Presently Jaipur 7. Chetan Swami S/o Bhaskar Swami, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 8. Laxman Swami S/o Bhaskar Swami, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:19391] (2 of 3) [CW-6475/2025] 9. Gopal Swami S/o Bhaskar Swami, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 10. Devashish Swami S/o Mohandas Swami, R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 11. Purva Swami S/o Mohandas Swami, Through Mother Smt. Mira Devi W/of Mohan Lal R/o Plot No. 33, Jhalana (Babaji Ki Chatri) Indian Gas Godam Ke Pass, Kailgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 12. Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Bichun, District Dudu Presently Jaipur 13. Sub-Registrar, Sub-Tehsil Bichun District Dudu Presently Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain Mr. Shubham Jain For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act of 1955”) has been rejected and the order dated 22.02.2024 has been upheld. 2. By passing the order dated 22.02.2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint submitted by the plaintiff-respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question is a self-acquired property of the petitioners and the same is not an ancestral property. Counsel submits that during the life time of the grand father, the grand [2025:RJ-JP:19391] (3 of 3) [CW-6475/2025] children cannot bring the suit for partition, hence, under these circumstances the suit filed by the respondent is barred by law and is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the plaint submitted by the respondents-plaintiff indicates that a suit for declaration and partition has been submitted by the plaintiff-respondents on various counts. The objection taken by the petitioners with regard to maintainability of suit, in terms of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is not tenable as none of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 are attracted in the present case, which requires any interference of this Court, hence, this Court finds that no illegality in the order passed by the S.D.O. which was further upheld by the Board of Revenue. The instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands rejected. However, in case any application is submitted by the petitioner for deciding the preliminary issue, the same would be decided by the trial Court, strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J MAHIMA/15