[2025:RJ-JP:28974] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 181/2024 1. Virendra Singh Katiyar Son Of Late Shree Vijay Singh Katiyar, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 2/591, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Yashwant Singh Katiyar Son Of Shree Virendra Singh Katiyar, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 2/591, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Vikram Singh Katiyar Son Of Late Shree Vijay Singh Katiyar, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 2/185, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Ajeet Singh Katiyar Son Of Late Shree Vijay Singh Katiyar, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 62/112, Sector 6 Pratap Nagar, Shyopur Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. 3. Rajendra Singh Katiyar Son Of Late Shree Vijay Singh Katiyar, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 2 T 1, Sant Shree Balram Das Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajsthan. 4. Narendra Singh Katiyar Son Of Late Shree Vijay Singh Katiyar, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 2 T 1, Sant 5. Surendra Singh Katiyar Son Of Late Shree Vijay Singh Katiyar, Resident Of 2 T 1, Sant Shree Balram Das Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajsthan. ----Plaintiffs 6. Shashi Singh Wife Of Shree Karamveersingh Gangwaar Daughter Of Late Shree Vijay Katiyar, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 62/111, Pratap Nagar, Shyopur Road, Jaipur. 7. Rajasthan State Industrial Develpment And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Unit Jaipur (Rural) 22 Godam , Industrial Area, Jaipur Through Senior Regional Manager And Unit Head. 8. Registrar Of Firms, District Business And Commercial Centre (Urban), Jaipur, 22 Godam, Industrial Area, Jaipur Through Registrar. 9. M/s Jain Papers, Through Proprietor Shree Vijay Kumar Sethi Son Of Shree Kundanmal Jain Aged About 45 Years, [2025:RJ-JP:28974] (2 of 4) [CR-181/2024] Resident Of House No.1445, Nataniyo Ka Rasta, Chora Rasta, Jaipur. ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 31/07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metro-I, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 09/2024 titled as "Vikram Singh Katiyar and Ors. Vs. Virendra Singh Katiyar and Ors.", by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 5-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants and respondent Nos. 6 to 9 in which they sought the relief that sale deed dated 03.01.2023 with regard to plot No. F-82 for declaring as null and void and also sought injunction for further transfer in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs had sought the relief for declaration of the sale deed [2025:RJ-JP:28974] (3 of 4) [CR-181/2024] dated 03.01.2023 as null and void but the plaintiffs had not paid the requisite court fees. He further submits that as per the contention of the plaintiffs, plot No. F-82 is of the partnership firm named M/s Capital Elastic Industries but the plaintiffs had not impleaded the partnership firm as a party. Said partnership was dissolved. Plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the supplementary partnership deed dated 19.12.2020. So, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that plaintiffs had rightly paid the court fees as per the Section 24 (E) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act because they were not the party in the sale deed. Defendant No. 1 had fraudulently included defendant No. 2 as a partner and executed the sale deed dated 03.01.2023 and also dissolved the firm but said entries were not made in the records of the Registrar of Firms, Registrar. So, the trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants because the objections raised by the defendants are mixed question of law and facts. So, The present revision petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order. While dismissing the application filed by the defendants, the trial Court clearly mentioned that cause of action is bundle of facts [2025:RJ-JP:28974] (4 of 4) [CR-181/2024] which would only be decided after evidence of the parties and also mentioned that objection with regard to court fees is not sustainable because the plaintiffs were not party to the sale deed. So, they rightly paid the court fees as per the Section 24 (E) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/88