[2025:RJ-JP:2309] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 101/2017 Roshan Lal Oil Mill Limited Now Known as ROM Industries Limited Office at Main Road Kanota District Jaipur and having its registered office at Kikar Bazar, Bathinda through its Authorized Signatory. ----Revisioner Versus 1. Babulal S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Ji, B/c Mahajan, R/o 115A, Bank Colony, Alwar And Second Address, D-47, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur 2. Saurabh Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Through Director, Shri Babulal, 20-21,old Industrial Area, Alwar 3. Vijay Industries Through Partner Shri Babulal, Khairtal District Alwar 4. Vijay Tin Industries, Through Partner Shri Babulal, Khairtal,alwar 5. Babulal Huf Through Karta Shri Babulal, 115A, Bank Colony, Alwar 6. Niranjan Lal S/o Late Shri Pyarelal, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar And C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Died During Pendency Of Revision Petition) 7. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Shri Ganga Deen, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar And C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 8. Daya Kishan S/o Shri Niranjan Lal, C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur And C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme 9. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Shri Niranjanlal, R/o Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 10. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Shri Vijay Kumar, R/o Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 11. Saurabh S/o Vijay Kumar, R/o Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 12. Smt. Neelima W/o Daya Kishan, R/o C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 13. Gaurav S/o Daya Kishan, Minor Through Natural Guardian [2025:RJ-JP:2309] (2 of 7) [CR-101/2017] Shri Daya Kishan R/o C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 14. Gori D/o Daya Kishan, Minor Through Natural Guardian Shri Daya Kishan R/o C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 15. Niranjan Lal Data Huf Through Karta Shri Niranjan Lal, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 16. Pyarelal Gangadeen Huf Through Karta Shri Niranjan Lal, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 17. Vijay Data Huf Through Karta Vijay Kumar, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 18. Daya Kishan Data Huf Through Karta Shri Daya Kishan, C- 82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 19. Raghuveer India Ltd. Through Director, Durgapura Station Road, Japipur 20. Data Infosys Ltd. Through Director, Inside Glass Factory, Tonk Road, Jaipur 21. Firm Pyarelal Niranjan Lal And Co. Through Partner, Shri Niranjan Lal, Kedalganj, New Mandi, Alwar 22. Bhagwati Agro Pvt. Ltd. Through Director, Shri Saurabh Data, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 23. Dhruv Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Through Director, Shri Vijay Data, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 24. Gaurav Ceremics Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Shri Daya Kishan Data, C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 25. Gaurav Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Shri Daya Kisahn Data, C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 26. Jhankar Motal Pvt Ltd. Through Directo Shri Niranjanlal Data, Inside Jaipur Glass, Tonk Road, Jaipur 27. Jai Complex Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Shri Ramesh Gupta, Riico Industrial Area, Bhiwadi 28. Vijay Solvex Ltd. Through Director Shri Vijay Data, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 29. Data Food Pvt. Ltd. Shri Lanka Through Director Shri Vijay Data, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 30. Jaipur Glass (A Unit Of Vijay Solvex Ltd.), Tonk Road, [2025:RJ-JP:2309] (3 of 7) [CR-101/2017] Jaipur Through Authorized Representatives, Shri Daya Kishan Data 31. Data Housewares Ltd. U.k. Through Director Shri Daya Kishan Data, C-82, Chaitanya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 32. Vijay Oil Mill Through Partner Shri Vijay Data, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 33. Firm Bhagwati Agro Through Partner Shri Vijay Data, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 34. Data Farm, Guna (M.p.), Through Partner Shri Vijay Data, Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayananad Marg, Alwar 35. Ajay Data S/o Shri Babulal Data, Proprietor M/s Ajay Containers, R/o D-47, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur 36. Sub-Registrar, Jaipur, Collectorate, Banipark, Jaipur 37. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Company Affairs, New Delhi 38. Registrar Of Companies Through Registrar, Roc Office, 5- 6/7, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, Near 22 Godown, Overbridge, C-Scheme, Jaipur 39. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur Through Branch Manager, Branch Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 40. Smt. Kamla D/o Late Shri Pyarelal W/o Late Shri Chhajuram, R/o C/o Hukumchand Harikishan, Old Anaj Mandi, Khairthal, District Alwar 41. Smt. Ramdulari D/o Late Shri Pyarelal W/o Late Shri Kamal Nayan, R/o C/o Kamal Narayan, Devaki Nandan, Kachahari Bazar, Bhadrak, Orissa 42. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi D/o Late Shri Ramniwas W/o Shri B.s. Gupta, Resident Of 158, Scheme No. 8, Alwar 43. Smt. Shakuntala Devi D/o Late Shri Ramniwas W/o Shri Satya Prakash Gupta, Resident Of C/o Mehul Tyres, Station Road, Alwar (Raj) 44. Smt. Pushpa Gupta D/o Shri Niranjan Lal W/o Late Shri Jaiprakash, R/o C/o Mahawar Emporium, 27,new Bazar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi 45. Smt. Shasi Gupta D/o Shri Niranjan Lal W/o Shri Ramesh Gupta, Resident Of C/o Jai Complex, A-99, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi District Alwar 46. Smt. Uma Gupta D/o Shri Niranjan Lal W/o Shri Vinod [2025:RJ-JP:2309] (4 of 7) [CR-101/2017] 47. Gupta, R/o C/o Krishna Rolling Mill, Jhotwara, Jaipur Smt. Sushma, daughter of Shri Niranjan Lal W/o SH. Tejram, R/o C/o Rajasthan Iron Traders, Y 175 Loha Mandi, Narayana, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amol Vyas, Adv. with Mr. Pulkit Arora, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. V. K. Tamolia, Adv. for Mr. Parag Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. Mr. Krishna Verma, Adv. for Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date Of Judgment 17/01/2025 The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.22 (for short ‘the petitioner’) against the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.28/2010 titled as “Babu Lal Vs. Niranjan Lal” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(A) read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 5-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for partition, declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction as well as settlement of accounts etc. against the petitioner as well as other defendants/respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.22 in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that [2025:RJ-JP:2309] (5 of 7) [CR-101/2017] the plaintiffs had not mentioned any cause of action against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is not related to Data Hindu Undivided Family. None of the Data Hindu Undivided Family had any share in the petitioner company. The petitioner has wrongly been impleaded in the suit. The plaintiffs failed to mention any relation of the petitioner company with the plaintiffs. They had only included the name of the petitioner in the Schedule annexed with the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on account of mere mentioning the petitioner company’ name in the Schedule, it can not be said that the petitioner company is the property of Data Hindu Undivided Family. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint before the trial court because the plaintiffs failed to disclose any cause of action against the petitioner and also wrongly impleaded the petitioner in the suit, but the trial court vide order dated 06.04.2017 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. So, the present petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Jai Narain N. Sadh Shadwara Vs. Pan American World Airways and Ors. Reported in 1986 SCC Online Del 71. [2025:RJ-JP:2309] (6 of 7) [CR-101/2017] Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has already taken all the averments in its written statement, which would be decided after evidence of the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that on account of mis-joinder of the parties, suit can not be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(A) read with Section 151 CPC. So, the trial court vide order dated 06.04.2017 rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Jageshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Shatrughan Ram (2007) 15 SCC 52 2. Mayar (H.K.) Ltd and others vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express (2006) 3 SCC 100 3. Diyashree Tuyenkar vs. Vinod Vishwanath Tuyenkar 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 165 4. Urooj Ahmed vs. preethi Kitchen 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 2969 5. Prem Lala Nahata vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007) 2 SCC 551 6. Frost International Limited vs. Milan Developers and Builders Limited (2022) 8 SCC 633. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. The trial court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner clearly mentioned that at this stage, it can not be said [2025:RJ-JP:2309] (7 of 7) [CR-101/2017] that none of the member of the Hindu Undivided Family is Shareholder or Director in petitioner’s company nor it can be said that the petitioner company is not the property of Joint Hindu Undivided Family. Cause of action a mixed question of law and fact which can be decided only after evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. So, 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/03