[2025:RJ-JP:27173] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 197/2022 1. Laxmanram S/o Shreeram Alias Ramlal Saini, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 2. Motilal Saini S/o Madanlal Saini, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Kailashchandra S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 2. Sanwarmal S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 3. Parmeshwarlal S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 4. Bansidhar S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 5. Bajranglal S/o Khaitaram, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 6. Radheyshyam S/o Shree Ram Alias Ramlal Saini, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 7. Basanti D/o Ramjilal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 8. Mani D/o Ramjilal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 9. Shyamli D/o Ramjilal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 10. Chukiya D/o Ramjilal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 11. Santosh D/o Ramjilal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. [2025:RJ-JP:27173] (2 of 4) [CR-197/2022] 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 12. Vimla D/o Ramjilal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 13. Saroj D/o Ramjilal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 14. Satyanarayan, S/o Madanlal Saini, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 15. Savitri, D/o Madanlal Saini, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 16. Teeja, D/o Madanlal Saini, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 17. Laxmidevi D/o Madanlal Saini, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Near Shah Market, Bandukiyon Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu. 18. Pranvendra Gaur S/o Suresh Kumar Gaur, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Derwala Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu. 19. Rafiq S/o Asgar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Pora Ki Dhani Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu. 20. Kapil S/o Dharampal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Hanumanpura Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu. 21. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holders, Tehsildar, Jhunjhunu. 22. Manwar Ali S/o Ajimkha, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 28, Mohala Batwalan, Jhunjhunu. 23. Umesh Kumar S/o Ramavtar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 20/87 Bandukiyon Ka Mohala Jhunjhunu. 24. Smt. Vijay Laxmi W/o Ramavtar, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 20/87 Bandukiyon Ka Mohala Jhunjhunu. 25. Shafiq S/o Gannikhan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Bakra Fatak Ke Aage, Near Hasmi Masjid, Jhunjhunu. 26. Shabina W/o Shafiq, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. [2025:RJ-JP:27173] (3 of 4) [CR-197/2022] 22, Bakra Fatak Ke Aage, Near Hasmi Masjid, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gautam Bhadadra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brij Bhushan Ojha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT /07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 01/2020 titled as Kailash Chand & Ors. Vs. Bajranglal & Ors.", whereby 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 4-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants and respondent Nos. 5 to 26 in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mentioning therein that the suit is related to agricultural land. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. By way of suit, the plaintiffs wanted to get declared the khatedari rights. So, only revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and civil Court had no right to declare khatedari right but the trial Court vide order dated 31.03.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the trial Court be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:27173] (4 of 4) [CR-197/2022] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that in revenue suit No. 228/2008 titled as "Vijay Laxmi and Ors. Vs. Radheshyam and Ors." Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu has declared 1/5th share of the plaintiffs in the land in question. So, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 07.03.2017 and permanent injunction. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the 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 and learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order. By way of the suit, the plaintiffs wanted to cancel the sale deed dated 07.03.2017 and civil Court had jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed. Plaintiffs had already got declared the khatedari rights in their favour from SDO Jhunjhunu. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, 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) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/25