[2025:RJ-JP:25532] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 182/2023 Pappulal S/o Sitaram, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Napa Ka Baas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. M/s S.N. Realmart, Partnership Firm, Through Partner Vishnudutt Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Resident Of 80/394, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) And Co- Partner A-Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.). 3. Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Late Shri Lalaram Sharma, Resident Of Harvanshpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. & Mr. Shantanu Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Tanmay Mathur, Adv. Mr. Lakshaya K. Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Pratibha Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 1 1 /0 7 /2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the District Judge, Tonk in Civil Suit No.17/2022, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for specific performance, mandatory and permanent injunction against the [2025:RJ-JP:25532] (2 of 5) [CR-182/2023] defendants in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 17.02.2023. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that there was no agreement to sell between the parties and defendant took the loan from the plaintiff for his personal business need. The said contention was also corroborated from Pradeep Agarwal’s statement, who was the then partner of the plaintiff firm. So, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the said agreement was not executable and void ab initio because a person, who belongs to Scheduled Tribes, cannot transfer his land to a person, who does not belong to a Scheduled Tribes. So, the present suit is barred by law. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that as per the plaint of the plaintiff, the partnership firm came into existence on 02.07.2014 but as per the plaintiff’s contention, the oral agreement was executed on 01.07.2014. Thus, on the said date of oral agreement, the partnership firm was not existence, therefore, no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit. So, suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. So, the petition be allowed and the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Mannalal Khetan and Others Vs. Kedar Nath Khetan and Others reported in (1977) 2 SCC 424; (2) Banwari Lal Vs. Anand and Others in Civil Revision [2025:RJ-JP:25532] (3 of 5) [CR-182/2023] Petition No.138/2009 decided on 03.05.2012; and (3) Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited Vs. Jagdeeshprasad Meena in Civil First Appeal No.639/2012 decided on 22.01.2013. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that defendant had not raised any objection before the trial court regarding non-occurrence of the cause of action and he had not mentioned that firm came into the existence on 02.07.2014, whereas the oral agreement was executed on 01.07.2014, so the said objection cannot be raised at this stage. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that the plaintiff had sought an alternative remedy that if decree for specific performance of the contract is not granted, he is entitled to get back the advance money given by him to the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that on the basis of contention of the co-partner of the firm, suit cannot be dismissed at this stage. He also submitted that as per the averments made in the plaint, the said land was converted. So, Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was not attracted and suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be dismissed on this ground. So, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Mahaveer Lunia and Others in Civil Appeal NO.7109/2025 decided on 23.05.2025; (2) Dhanna Ram Vs. Shrawan and [2025:RJ-JP:25532] (4 of 5) [CR-182/2023] Others in Civil First Appeal No.671/2007 decided on 30.05.2012; (3) Ramniwas Vs. Madan Meena in Civil Revision No.150/2016 decided on 03.02.2017; (4) Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Shrimat Mahaveer Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Others in Civil Revision Petition No.81/2013 decided on 04.11.2016; (5) Dhanna Ram Vs. Shrawan & Others in Civil First Appeal No.671/2007 decided on 30.05.2012; and (6) Gobar Ram and Another Vs. Ram Pratap and Others in Civil Revision Petition No.18/2021 decided on 07.12.2021. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the defendant had not raised any objection regarding the formation of the plaintiff’s firm on 02.07.2014 and that said agreement was executed on 01.07.2014. Therefore, the objection not raised by the defendant while presenting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court is not maintainable at this stage. The Plaintiff clearly mentioned in the plaint that the disputed land was converted, so, the provision of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not applicable at this stage. The plaintiff in his suit, also sought an alternative remedy regarding the refund of the money given by him as advance. The trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant elaborately discussed the arguments and rightly came to the conclusion that objection raised by the defendant in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, [2025:RJ-JP:25532] (5 of 5) [CR-182/2023] the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Avinash/89