[2025:RJ-JP:25382] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 155/2023 1. Bijendra Singh S/o Late Shri Sagarmal Jat, R/o Abhusar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Second Address A-3/2 Hari Nagar, Vidhyadhar Nagar Road, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Kamlesh Abhusaria, S/o Shri Bijendra Singh, R/o Abusar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Second Address A-3/a Hari Nagar, Vidhyadhar Nagar Road, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus Surendra Singh S/o Shri Bijendra Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Abusar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) Resident of Abusar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) Second Address A- 3/2 Hari Nagar, Vidhyadhar Nagar Road, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R K Daga, Adv. with Mr. R S Chouhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M M Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rajat Ranjan, Adv. & Mr. Pradhuman Latta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 10 /07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 35/2023 titled as "Surendra Singh Vs. Bijendra Singh and Ors.", whereby the trial Court dismissed the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. [2025:RJ-JP:25382] (2 of 4) [CR-155/2023] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit against the defendants for declaration, partition and permanent injunction in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff and suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred but the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that disputed property belongs to defendant No. 1-Bijendra Singh. Disputed properties are not the properties of Hindu Undivided Family. No Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.12.1995 was executed. The said disputed property is self-acquired property of defendant No. 1-Bijendra Singh and plaintiff wanted to execute Memorandum of Understanding/ Family Settlement dated 17.12.1995. So, the present suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff filed a revenue suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu. So, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by principle of res judicata. Therefore, the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside, the revision petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors." passed in Civil Appeal No. 2717/2023 decided on 28.04.2023. [2025:RJ-JP:25382] (3 of 4) [CR-155/2023] Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement was executed in the year 1995. Properties of the family members was devolved in Hindu Undivided Family pool. Pursuant to the said Memorandum of Understanding, partition of the properties was done, but in the year 2022, defendant No. 1-Bijendra Singh wanted to alienate the disputed properties. So, the present suit was filed for partition as well as declaration. Therefore, the suit was within limitation. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the point of limitation is to be decided only after recording the evidence of the parties, as it is a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the defendants, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors." in civil appeal No. 4665/2021 decided on 09.08.2021 and "Keshav Sood Vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood and ors." in civil appeal No. 5841/2023 decided on 12.09.2023. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. While dismissing the application filed by the defendants, the trial Court clearly mentioned that previous suit was not similar to present suit. It also observed that defendant No. 1-Bijendra Singh [2025:RJ-JP:25382] (4 of 4) [CR-155/2023] wanted to alienate the disputed property which belonged to Hindu Undivided Family. Therefore, the plaintiff wanted to get the disputed property partitioned. So, cause of action arose to the plaintiff in the year 2022. In my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the present revision 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/82