[2025:RJ-JP:29132] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 121/2022 1. Smt. Galku Devi W/o Late Shri Ramkaran, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) 2. Chhagan Son Of Late Shri Ugmaram Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, Dis- trict Ajmer (Raj) 3. Ratan Son Of Late Shri Ugmaram Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, Dis- trict Ajmer (Raj) 4. Ranglal Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) 5. Madanlal Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) 6. Bardilal Son Of Bhanwarlal Son Of Late Shri Ramkaran, Resident Of Village Devpuri, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Prem Devi W/o Late Nanda Jat, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Dand Ki Dhani, Dadiya, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) 2. Balram Son Of Late Shri Nanda Jat, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Dand Ki Dhani, Dadiya, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) 3. Hemraj Son Of Late Shri Nanda Jat, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Dand Ki Dhani, Dadiya, Tehsil Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) ----Respondents-Plantiffs 4. Sub Registrar Arai, District Ajmer (Raj) ----Proforma Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Batra, G C with Ms. Poonam Rao, Adv. & Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:29132] (2 of 4) [CR-121/2022] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 31/07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court'), in civil suit No. 8/2021 titled as "Prem Devi and Ors. Vs. Galku Devi 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 3-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit under Order VII Rule 1 CPC and for the Specific Performance of the agreement dated 22.06.2001 and 12.12.2001 and permanent injunction in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 11.04.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred because father of the plaintiffs had filed a suit under Sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in which defendants filed written statement on 14.11.2006 and clearly mentioned that agreement was never executed. So, the plaintiff had knowledge with regard to denial of the agreement in the year 2006 but they had not filed suit within limitation. To create limitation, they had given notice before filing the suit, of which defendants had given the reply that in previously instituted revenue suit written statement was filed by the defendants and it was clearly mentioned that agreement was [2025:RJ-JP:29132] (3 of 4) [CR-121/2022] never executed. So, present suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred but the trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that it is a matter of evidence. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed being time barred. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. in civil appeal No. 9519/2019 decided on 09.07.2020. 2. Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors. in civil appeal No. 2717/2023 decided on 28.04.2023. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that father of the plaintiffs had filed a revenue suit of which they had no knowledge. So, limitation was commenced from the date of reply of the notice given by defendants. So, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that point of limitation would be decided after evidence of the parties. 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. It is an admitted position that previous suit was filed by the father of the plaintiffs, in which defendants filed a written statement and clearly denied the execution of the so-called agreement in the year 2006. So, in my considered opinion, cause [2025:RJ-JP:29132] (4 of 4) [CR-121/2022] of action was accrued to the plaintiffs in the year 2006 for filing of the suit for specific performance but they had filed the suit in the year 2021. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred. In my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed; order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being time barred. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/44