HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 128/2022 Nand Kishore Son Of Shri Prabhati, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village- Panditpura, Tehsil- Basawa, District- Dausa (Raj.), Presently Residing Sector No. 3, 3Mb / 324, Indira Gandhi Nagar Housing Board, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner-Defendant No.1 Versus 1. Uma Shankar Gupta Son Of Shri Sita Ram, Resident Of Village- Sakat, Tehsil- Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.). …...Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Sub- Registrar, Baswa, Tehsil- Baswa, District Dausa. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.). ----Respondents/Defendant Nos.2 and 3 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. G. S. Gouttam, Adv. on behalf of Mr. R. K. Gouttam, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 16/04/2025 The civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant') under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC against the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bandikui, District Dausa (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.3/2021 titled as “Uma Shankar Gupta V/s Nand Kishore & Ors”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. (2 of 3) [CR-128/2022] Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 26.10.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant in his application clearly stated that the plaintiff had filed the suit after expiry of limitation period. No cause of action was accrued to the plaintiff. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that the issue of limitation and cause of action would be decided only after framing the issues and leading the evidence by the parties. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. The defendant in his application raised the objections that the suit was time barred and no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. The trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that these objections would be decided after framing the issues and leading the evidence by the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the (3 of 3) [CR-128/2022] defendant. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any(s), also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/138