[2025:RJ-JP:29562] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 143/2022 1. Sanjay Bardiya S/o Shri Hansraj Bardiya, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Jhakoreshwar Mard, Near Madhosingh Circle, Banipark, Jaipur. 2. Ganesh Narayan Raika, S/o Shri Harsukh Rai Raika, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Near Sevadasji Ki Bagichi, Reengus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners-Defendants Versus 1. Kaluram S/o Parsa Ram, R/o Ward No. 2, Reengus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Pokharmal S/o Shri Devaram, R/o Behind Rswm, Aasiwalo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 1, Jetusar, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents-Plaintiffs 3. Patwari Halka Patwar Bhawan, Reengus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 4. Sub-Registrar, Registrar Office, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 5. Land Holder, Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 6. Nagar Palika Reengus, Through Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Reengus, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 7. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Sikar. ----Respondents/Defendants 8. Aditya Jhunjhunuwala S/o Shri Vinay Kumar Jhunjhunuwala, R/o D-104, Poonam Apartment, Dr. Annai, Basant Road, Anita Mall, Worli, Mumbai-400018. ----Proforma Respondents-Defendant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Batra, G C with Ms. Poonam Rao, Adv. & Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:29562] (2 of 4) [CR-143/2022] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/08/2025 This civil revision petition had been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, Sikar (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 28/2019 titled as "Kaluram & Ors. Vs. Sanjay & Ors." by which 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 and 2 had filed a civil suit in the representative capacity for declaration of the sale deed dated 26.07.2018, Power of Attorney dated 07.03.2013 as null and void and permanent injunction in which they had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court, but the trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that plaintiffs had challenged the sale deed dated 26.07.2018, the value of which was Rs. 48,50,000/- but they had not sought any relief in relation to the declaration that the disputed land is for the use of public at large. They also challenged the Power of Attorney dated 07.03.2013 to declare the same as a null and void and the suit was filed in the year 2019. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation but the trial Court had committed an error in [2025:RJ-JP:29562] (3 of 4) [CR-143/2022] dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that plaintiffs filed the suit in the representative capacity. Disputed property is a public property. None has authority to sale it. So, the plaintiffs filed the suit to declare the sale deed and Power of Attorney as null and void. Plaintiffs is not party in sale deed. So, they rightly filed the court fees as per the provision of Section 24- A of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Therefore, 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 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that suit filed by the plaintiffs is in the representative capacity. They had also sought the permission from the Court for the purpose of cause of action. They very well pleaded that when they knew the disputed sale deed 26.07.2018 then they procured the certified copies and filed the present suit. So, in my considered opinion, it cannot be said that suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Plaintiffs wanted to challenge the sale deed value of which Rs. 48,50,000/- but they had paid the court fees as per the provision of Section 24-A of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act. In my considered opinion, they had to pay the court fees as per the value of the sale deed. So, present petition deserves to be partly allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:29562] (4 of 4) [CR-143/2022] Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is partly allowed; the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside to the extent of court fees and trial Court is directed to take the requisite court fees as per the value of the sale deed from the plaintiffs and after that suit be returned to the plaintiffs for filing the same before the competent court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/45