[2025:RJ-JP:27588] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 75/2020 Ramsharan Sharma S/o Shri Chotilal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Gram Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Nenchiram Mali S/o Shri Bheruram Mali, Maliyon Ki Dhani, Village Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur. 2. Nanuram Meena S/o Shri Ashuram Meena, R/o Village Indergarh, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur. 3. Manbhar Devi D/o Shri Chotilal Sharma, R/o Village Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur. 5. Sub Registrar, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan, Adv. Mr. Anurag Pareek, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 24/07/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2 (for short ‘the defendant No.2’) against the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.11/2020, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a [2025:RJ-JP:27588] (2 of 3) [CR-75/2020] suit for declaring the gift deed dated 12.06.2008 as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 also submits that the defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court but trial court vide order dated 20.07.2020 dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 also submits that the plaintiffs filed the suit in the year 2020 for declaring the so-called gift deed dated 12.06.2008 executed by defendant No.1-Manbhar Devi in favour of the defendant No.2 as null and void i.e. after a lapse of 12 years, whereas the suit could not have been filed after a period of three years. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 also submits that the plaintiff was a Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat Jamwaramgarh in the year 2010. At the time the then sarpanch prepared a report in relation to defendant No.2’s land, wherein the plaintiff put his signature/thumb impression. Meaning thereby, the plaintiffs had knowledge with regard to defendant No.2’s land for the last many years but they filed the suit belatedly. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 also submits that after receiving the charges from Manbhar Devi on 12.04.1982, a patta was issued in her favour by Gram Panchayat, of which registered gift deed was executed in favour of defendant No.2 before Sub-Registrar, Jamwaramgarh. Despite that Gram Panchayat Jamwaramgarh which issued the patta was not impleaded as a necessary party, whereas Gram Panchayat Jamwaramgarh was a necessary party for deciding the suit. On account of non-joinder of the necessary and proper party, the present suit was liable to be dismissed. So, the petition filed by [2025:RJ-JP:27588] (3 of 3) [CR-75/2020] the defendant No.2 be allowed, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed and order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.2 and submits that while dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.2, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that question of limitation and other objection raised by the defendant No.2 regarding non- joinder of the party would be decided after evidence of the parties in the suit. So, the present petition filed by the defendant No.2 deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.2 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. While deciding the application filed by the defendant No.2, trial court clearly mentioned that question of limitation would be decided after the evidence of the parties. The objection raised by the defendant No.2 regarding non-joinder of the necessary party and cause of action would also be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.2, So, the present petition filed by the defendant No.2 being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /57