[2025:RJ-JP:27638] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 145/2025 Rudmal Chejara Son Of Shri Seduram Chejara, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Village Bay, Tehsil - Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dhara Singh Son Of Shri Jhabar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Khora Tan Bay, Tehsil - Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Dharampal Singh Son Of Shri Mangej Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Khora Tan Bay, Tehsil - Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 3. Prahlad Sahay Lora Son Of Shri Duduram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Ward No-8, Village Banathala, Tehsil- Dantaramgarh, District - Sikar (Rajasthan). 4. Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Pitharam, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Village Likhma Ka Bas,, Tehsil - Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 5. Sub-Registrar, Dantaramgarh District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 24/07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Dantaramgarh, Sikar in Civil Suit No.62/2025, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:27638] (2 of 2) [CR-145/2025] Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC wherein it was mentioned that the basis of the suit is so-called agreement dated 17.03.2017. At that time, the defendant was in Dubai and he has not signed the said agreement. Therefore, the said agreement was forged one. He further submits that the trial court vide its order dated 07.04.2025 has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the trial court be set aside. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned judgment. It is an admitted position that objection raised by the defendant in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is a mixed question of law and fact, which would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has 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 /9