[2025:RJ-JP:32035] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 250/2025 1. Usman Khan Son Of Aasin @ Yasin Khan, Resident Of Kasba Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.). 2. Anwar Khan, Son Of Late Pappu Khan, Resident Of Kasba Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.). 3. Irfan Khan Son Of Late Pappu Khan, Resident Of Kasba Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.). 4. Bano, Daughter Of Late Aasin @ Yasin, Wife Of Majid Shah, Resident Of Manoharpur, District Jaipur. 5. Mamta Daughte Of Late Aasin @ Yasin, Wife Of Hamid Shah, Resident Of Ramgarh Pachwara, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara District Dausa (Raj.). 6. Sharifan, Daughter Of Late Aasin @ Yasin, Wife Of Sabuddin Khan, Resident Of Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). 7. Rajat Bihari Sharma Son Of Shiv Kumar Mishra, Resident Of Kasba Lalsot, Tehsil Lasot, District Dausa (Raj.). ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Lal Khan Son Of Late Khajya Khan, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Ramgarh Pachwara Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.). ---Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Deputy Registrar, Ramgarh Pachwara Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.). 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Ramgarh Pachwara District Dausa (Raj.). 4. District Collector, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.). ----Proforma Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment [2025:RJ-JP:32035] (2 of 3) [CR-250/2025] Date of Judgment :: 19/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Lalsot in civil suit No. 69/2025 (70/2025) whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent No.1- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 21.02.2025 as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 17.05.2025 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable because earlier the plaintiff had filed a suit before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh for declaration, partition and permanent injunction. Learned counsel further submits that without getting declared the Khatedari rights, the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 21.02.2025 as null and void but the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that by way of the suit, plaintiff wanted to get declared the sale deed dated 21.02.2025 as null and void because only civil court had jurisdiction to cancel the same. Learned counsel further submitted [2025:RJ-JP:32035] (3 of 3) [CR-250/2025] that in disputed property, defendants and plaintiff have 1/3rd share. Name of the plaintiff was in the revenue record but due to some error, his name was deleted. Plaintiff had filed the suit before the Sub Divisional Officer, Lalsot in which preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 16.06.2016 in which the defendants and plaintiff’s share was declared as 1/3rd – 1/3rd - 1/3rd. Defendants filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, which is pending. So, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the defendants would be decided after taking 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 counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that plaintiff had 1/3rd share in the disputed property but due to some mistake, his name was deleted. Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalsot vide order dated 16.06.2016 had declared 1/3rd share to each of the defendants as well as plaintiff. Defendants had challenged the said order by way of an appeal which is pending before the Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. 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/12