[2025:RJ-JP:32129] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156/2023 Balsingh Son Of Manya Lodha, Resident Of Mirzapur, Lodha Colony, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Prem Singh Son Of Chhitar Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Mirzapur, Lodha Colony, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. ---Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Bhanwar Son Of Manya Lodha, Resident Of Mirzapur, Lodha Colony, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 3. Gulab Daughter Of Manya Wife Of Phoolyo, Resident Of Village Jaisinghpur, Chaksu, District Jaipur. 4. Nanagi Daughter Of Manya Wife Of Nangyo, Resident Of Village Jaisinghpur, Chaksu, District Jaipur. 5. Sub-Registrar, Through Tehsildar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Land Holder, Through Tehsildar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 7. Rajasthan State, Through District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. 8. Vijendar Son Of Ramsingh, Resident Of Lodha Colony, Mirzapur, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 9. Harishankar Son Of Ramsingh, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Kamli Devi Wife Of Ramsingh, Resident Of Lodha Colony, Mirzapur, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 10. Kamli Devi Wife Of Ramsingh, Resident Of Lodha Colony, Mirzapur, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 11. Mansingh Son Of Chhitar, Resident Of Lodha Colony, Mirzapur, Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur. 12. Bhagwan Singh Lodha Son Of Chhitar, Resident Of Lodha Colony, Mirzapur, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. 13. Dhapu Bai Daughter Of Chhitar Singh, Resident Of Lodha Colony, Mirzapur, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents/Defendants [2025:RJ-JP:32129] (2 of 3) [CR-156/2023] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D K Dixit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil K. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 19/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur in civil suit No. 1/2023 whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 06.04.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that in present suit, municipal council is a necessary party because the disputed land is registered in the name of Municipal Council and there is no averment in the agreement that the defendant would execute the sale deed. So, the suit for specific performance of the contract is not maintainable but the trial Court vide order dated 06.04.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. [2025:RJ-JP:32129] (3 of 3) [CR-156/2023] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant and submitted that the defendant has filed the written statement and took all the averments in the written statement. Learned counsel further submits that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only averments in the plaint are to be considered and not the defence of the defendant. So, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant because the objections raised by the defendant would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the objection as to the Municipal Council is a necessary party, no averment with regard to execution of the sale deed and maintainability of the suit being mixed question of law and fact, would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. The civil revision petition 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 Ritu/94