[2025:RJ-JP:36697] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 25/2015 1. Mangi Nath S/o Shri Kesarnath Jogi, R/o Village Tilania, Tehsil Nasirabad, Distt. Ajmer. 2. Babu Nath S/o Shri Kesarnath Jogi, R/o Village Tilania, Tehsil Nasirabad, Distt. Ajmer. ----Defendant/Petitioners Versus 1. Mithu Lal S/o Shri Shyoji, aged 37 years, R/o Village Tilana, Tehsil Nasirabad, Distt. Ajmer. ----Plaintiff/Non-Petitioner 2. Shyodan S/o Shri Sadul 3. Ram Pratap S/o Shri Sadul 4. Sayar Son Of Shri Sadul 5. Ramkaran Son Of Shri Sukha 6. Hari S/o Shri Ram Chandra (All R/o Village Tilana, Tehsil Nasirabad, Distt. Ajmer) 7. Dy. Registrar, Tehsil Nasirabad, Distt. Ajmer. ----Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dhawan For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 10/09/2025 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the defendant- petitioners under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure assailing the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Court of Civil & Judicial Magistrate (J.D.), Nasirabad (for short ‘the court below’) in Original Suit No.39/2014, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 11 CPC was dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:36697] (2 of 3) [CR-25/2015] 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 03.09.2014 the plaintiff Mithu Lal filed a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC in the court below with the prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.12.1977. On receipt of notices, the defendant-petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 11 CPC with the averments that the litigation between the father of the plaintiff and defendant-petitioners regarding the suit property was ended in the Revenue Court with settlement and the defendants were having lawful possession of the suit property and the suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed after 37 years of the execution of sale deed, which is beyond the limitation period and prohibited by law and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Court after having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and the material made available on record, dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 3. After filing this revision petition, the petitioner No.1- Mangi Nath passed away and this fact was brought to the notice to learned counsel for the petitioners on 20.09.2023, but till date even after passing of about two years, no steps have been taken for taking on record the legal heirs of deceased petitioner No.1. 4. Hence, this revision petition to the extent of petitioner No.1 stands abated. 5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 and perused the impugned order. 6. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners defendants with the averments that the suit filed by [2025:RJ-JP:36697] (3 of 3) [CR-25/2015] the plaintiff respondent is hopelessly barred by limitation after a period of about thirty seven years, for cancellation of the sale deed. The issue of compromise was also raised in the application that there was a settlement in between the parties as regards the suit property when the matter was pending before the Revenue Court. In reply to the said application, the fact of compromise was denied. The plaintiff respondent while filing the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, has submitted that the suit for cancellation has been filed after it came to his knowledge that any such sale deed has been executed for the suit property. 7. In a case where it is pleaded that the cause of action for filing the suit, arose on having knowledge of the sale deed which is under challenge in the suit proceedings. In such circumstances, whether the plaintiff respondent was having knowledge of execution of sale deed or not, prior to filing of the suit and from which date the limitation period is to be counted, that is a mixed question of fact of law, which can only be decided after the evidence of the parties in that regard. The scope of revision petition is also very limited. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the Court finds no error in the order passed by the Court below, hence, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA/1