[2025:RJ-JP:31098] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 187/2019 1. Babulal S/o Late Sh. Kaluram Meena, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. (Deceased) 1/1. Mahaveer Meena S/o Babulal Aged 60 years, R/o Village Goner Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. 2. Madan Lal Meena S/o Late Sh. Kaluram Meena,R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. ---Defendant-Petitioners Versus 1. Rakesh S/o Shri Jagannath, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. 2. Smt Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Jagannath, Aged About 50 Years, Daughter-In -Law Of Late Kana By Caste Regar, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur 3. Smt Ladi Devi W/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Alias Laxman, By Caste Regar, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur 4. Mohni D/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Alias Laxman (Deceased), Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur 4/1. Kajodmal Morya S/o Mohani Deve Amd Nandaram, Village Thala Tehsil Phagi District Jaipur. 4/2. Manish Morya S/o Mohani Deve Amd Nandaram, Village Thala Tehsil Phagi District Jaipur. 4/3. Sita Devi D/o Mohani Deve Amd Nandaram Wife Of Bhagchand, Village Kalyanpura Panchayat Khareda Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur. 5. Kamla D/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Alias Lakshman, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Mansingh Pura Colony Regaron Ka Mohalla Ram Bagh Jaipur. 6. Savitri D/o Late Shri Laxminaryan Alias Lakshman, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Mansinghpura Colony Raigaron Ka Mohalla Rambagh Jaipur. Renwal Manji Tehsil Phagi District Jaipur R/o Village Goner Tehsil Sanganer Jaipur. ----Respondent Nos. 1-6-Plaintiffs [2025:RJ-JP:31098] (2 of 4) [CR-187/2019] 7. Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Secretary, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 8. Shrimati Rashmi Bhagai W/o Shri Snit Bagai Aged 51 years, R/o House No.S-21, Bhawani Singh Road C- Scheme Jaipur Rajasthan. ---Defendant-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma, Adv. Mr. R. S. Gurjar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 12/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (East) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.101/2019, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Section 99 of Jaipur Development Authority Act. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants as well as respondent Nos.7 to 8 in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 27.04.2019 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:31098] (3 of 4) [CR-187/2019] Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants as no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs to file the suit. The plaintiffs, in their plaint, admitted that on 06.04.1995 Revenue Board has considered their sale deed illegal. Since then no proceedings have been undertaken. As per the findings of the Revenue Board, no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs. As per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs. Possession of the disputed land has already been handed over to the defendants. The present suit is not for the realization of compensation. He also submits that the plaintiffs have not paid the proper court fees. Additionally, no notice was given to the JDA before filing the suit. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Rajasthan Housing Board V/s New Pink City Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 2986: (2) Ram Chandra and Anr. Vs. Om Prakash and Ors. Reported in (1978) RLW 442: (3) T. Arivandandam V/s T.V. Satyapal and Anr. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4483/1977 decided on 14.10.1977: Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court vide order dated 27.04.2019 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants because while deciding the [2025:RJ-JP:31098] (4 of 4) [CR-187/2019] application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only averments of the plaint are to be seen not the defence of the defendants. He also submits that the trial court has already framed the issues, so objections raised by the defendants would be decided after the evidence of 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 defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments of the plaint are to be seen, not the defence of the defendants. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants and rightly came to the conclusion that the objections raised by the defendants would be decided after the evidence of the parties. 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/53