[2025:RJ-JP:16298] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156/2019 Prakash Brajvasi S/o Shri Prahlad Rai Brajvasi, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of House No. 505, Gangouri Bazar Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Late Vaidh Madan Lal Sharma, Resident Of B-100 University Marg Bapu Nagar Jaipur. 2. Madan Mohini Charitable Trust, Through President/secretary Office B-100 University Marg Bapu Nagar Jaipur. 3. Narmada Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Harsahay Shastri, Resident Of Plot No.b/4/c, Ambabari Jaipur. 4. Gopinath Pareek S/o Shri Raghunath Prasad Pareek, Resident Of Plot No. 21,rameshawardham Murlipura Jaipur. 5. Kapil Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Sharma, Resident Of Plot No.b-67 Bapu Nagar Jaipur. 6. Arun Sharma S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Resident Of Plot No. 46 Sultan Nagar Gurjar Ki Thadi Jaipur. 7. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mitthan Lal Sharma, Resident Of Plot No.56 Surya Nagar Gopalpura Bye Pass Jaipur. 8. Vaidh Asit Kumar Panja S/o Shri Vishwanath Panja, Resident Of Plot No.04, Khandelwal Nagar Vistar Agra Road Jaipur. 9. Sanjeev Parashar S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Parashar, Resident Of Plot No.d-82 Ptrakar Colony Jawahar Nagar Jaipur. 10. Dr. S.k. Brajvasi S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Brajvasi, Resident Of B-28, 29, Janta Store Bapu Nagar Jaipur. 11. Sanjay Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kishore Sharma, Resident Of Plot No.29, Shreeji Colony Durgapura Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:16298] (2 of 4) [CR-156/2019] For Respondent(s) : Mr. Subodh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Meena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 17/04/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 16/2019, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Section 41(J) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of registered trust deed dated 06.08.2015, registered Will dated 22.06.2017 and permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 2 to 11. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant had filed an application before the trial Court under Section 41(J) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2019 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiff-Ghanshyam Sharma was never adopted by the Mohini Devi and Madan Lal Sharma in their lifetime as their son. Plaintiff had also filed a suit No. 580/2015 for declaring him as adopted son of the Madan Lal Sharma and Mohini Devi and the said suit is still pending before [2025:RJ-JP:16298] (3 of 4) [CR-156/2019] the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur and present suit is also filed by the plaintiff as adopted son of the Madan Lal Sharma. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff because without declaring him as an adopted son of Madan Lal Sharma, he had no right to file the present suit. So, the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the trial Court be set aside, the application filed by the plaintiff be allowed and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed the reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. in civil appeal Nos. 1269-1270/2019 decided on 19.01.2019. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and submits that it is an admitted position that suit filed by the plaintiff for declaring him as an adopted son of Madan Lal Sharma is still pending and in that view of the matter cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. Trust was formed with regard to disputed property and will was also executed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. So, the plaintiff had right to file the present suit. So, the present suit can’t be dismissed at this stage. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:16298] (4 of 4) [CR-156/2019] I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that plaintiff had filed a suit with regard to declaring him as an adopted son of the Madan Lal Sharma and Mohini Devi and the said suit is still pending. When registered trust deed and Will were executed, fresh cause of action accrued to the defendant to claim their rights on the basis of said documents. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed defendant. Therefore, the present civil revision petition filed by the defendant 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 Tahir/112