[2025:RJ-JP:27326] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 128/2023 Smt. Munesh Devi W/o Shri Ravindra Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhoda Gaon, Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner/Defendant No. 2 Versus 1. Mukesh Kumar S/o Rambharosi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Tajpur Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. 2. Amit Kumar S/o Ram Bharosi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Tajpur Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. ---Respondents/Plaintiffs 3. Rambharosi S/o Shri Prabhu, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Tajpur, Tehsil Weir Distt. Bharatpur At Present House No. 57 Iii Floor, Pocket-5, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 4. Manju Kumari D/o Shri Rambharosi W/o Abhishek, R/o Tajpur, Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur At Present House No. 57 Iii Floor, Pocket-5, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi- 110085. ----Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khushal Singh Rahtore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Katara, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 22/07/2025 1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2 (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Weir, District Bharatpur in civil suit No. 18/2022 whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a [2025:RJ-JP:27326] (2 of 3) [CR-128/2023] suit for declaration, partition of the joint Hindu property and cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.07.2021 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant and for permanent injunction. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant filed an application before the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that the suit filed filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable because without getting declaration their khatedari rights, plaintiffs cannot seek the relief for cancellation of the sale deed and khatedar rights could only be adjudicated by the revenue court. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors.’, reported in 2019 DNJ (SC) 115. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant and submitted that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition of joint Hindu property as they had share in the disputed property. Learned counsel further submits that disputed property belongs to ancestors of the plaintiffs and father of the plaintiffs had no right to sell it, so, primary relief sought by the plaintiffs was for cancellation of the sale deed. So the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the revision petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance on the following judgments:- [2025:RJ-JP:27326] (3 of 3) [CR-128/2023] (1) ‘Arvind Sharma Vs. Girdhar Gopal Sharma and ors.’, in Civil Revision Petition No. 51/2022, decided on 27.06.2024 (2) ‘Kailash Chandra Goyal Vs. Ramesh Chandra Goyal and Ors.’ reported in 2023(2) RLW 1526 (Raj.). 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. By filing the present suit, plaintiffs sought the relief for partition of the joint Hindu property as well as for cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.07.2021 executed by defendant No.1- Rambharosi in favour of the defendant. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that the relief sought by the plaintiffs can only be granted by the civil court. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the revision petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/60