[2025:RJ-JP:23888] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 174/2024 Puran Son Of Kana, Resident Of Dhani Katariya Wali, Tan Khoraladkhani, Tehsil Sahapura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jagdish Son Of Likhmaram, Resident Of Dhani Katariyawali, Tan Khoraladkhani, Tehsil Sahapura, District Jaipur(Raj). 2. Sub- Registrar Officer, Viratnagar, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Patwari Halka, Patwar Halka Amolda Dudi, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. Tehsildar, Virat Nagar, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Adv. assisted by Mr. Shubham Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Aayushi Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 01/07/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Viratnagar, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.28/2020, 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-respondent (for short ‘the plaintiff’) had filed a suit for [2025:RJ-JP:23888] (2 of 3) [CR-174/2024] specific performance of the agreement dated 05.06.1987 and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent-defendant Nos.2 to 4 mentioning therein that the defendant had executed an agreement to sell in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for Gair Khatedari Land which is mentioned in Para No.1 of the plaint. Learned senior counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the defendant was not a Khatedar of the disputed land, so he had no right to execute the agreement to sell. So, the said contract was void and was not enforceable but the trial court vide order dated 23.04.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narayanamma (Smt.) & Anr. Vs. Sri Govindappa & Ors. Reported in 2019 DNJ (SC) 1009. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant because it is an admitted position that at the time of agreement to sell, the defendant was Gair Khatedar and subsequently he had got the Khatedari rights. So, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the said agreement was rightly executed in accordance with the provisions of law and order 7 Rule [2025:RJ-JP:23888] (3 of 3) [CR-174/2024] 11 CPC is not attracted. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order dated 23.04.2024. It is an admitted position that at the time of execution of the said agreement, the defendant was Gair Khatedar but subsequently he had got the khatedari rights. The trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC elaborately dealt with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and rightly came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff can not be dismissed while applying the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, in my considered opinion, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/94