HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 194/2025 Kali Charan S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Ji Sharma, Resident Of Gram Kalu Ka Bas, Tan Tigariya, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Present Resident Of Plot Number-B-37-38, Prem Colony, Shivaji Marg, Nehru Nagar, Post Shastri Nagar, Jaipur District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Khyali Ram S/o Late Shri Ramkishore Sharma, Resident Of Gram Kalu Ka Bas, Tan Tigariya, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Present Resident Plot Number-299, Rajni Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Kapil S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Ji Sharma, Resident Of Gram Kalu Ka Bas, Tan Tigariya, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Present Resident Of Plot Number-B-37-38, Prem Colony, Shivaji Marg, Nehru Nagar, Post Shastri Nagar, Jaipur District Jaipur. 3. Ajay S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Ji Sharma, Resident Of Gram Kalu Ka Bas, Tan Tigariya, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Present Resident Of Plot Number-B-37-38, Prem Colony, Shivaji Marg, Nehru. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Mohadaya, Chomu, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. 5. Shriman Up Panjiyak Mohadaya, Chomu Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramji Lal Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 08/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC (2 of 3) [CR-194/2025] against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.17/2025, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1/plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of the release deed as well as the permanent injunction against the defendant as well as the respondent Nos.2 to 5/defendant Nos.2 to 5 (for short “the other defendants”) in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 11.03.2025 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the said application because by way of the suit filed in the year 2025, the plaintiff wanted to cancel the release deed dated 20.10.2015 i.e. after a lapse of near about 10 years and the land in question is agricultural land. So, only the revenue court has jurisdiction to try the matter. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that he has also raised an objection of court fee before the trial court. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order dated 11.03.2025. (3 of 3) [CR-194/2025] While dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the trial court clearly mentioned that the civil court has a jurisdiction to cancel the release deed and also mentioned that the question of limitation as well as the court fees would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/08