[2025:RJ-JP:30792] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 188/2023 1. Bhanwar Son Of Sethu, Resident of Village Ballabhgarh, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.). 2. Gopal Son Of Sethu, Resident of Ballabhgarh, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.). ---Defendants/petitioners-Applicants Versus 1. Gomati Daughter Sethu, Resident of Ballabhgarh, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.). 2. Somu Son Of Sethu, Resident of Ballabhgarh, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.). 3. Harmukh Son Of Sethu, Resident of Ballabhgarh, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.). ---Plaintiffs-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 11/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short the defendants) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Bhusawar (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.10/2019, titled as “Gomati & Ors. V/s. Bhanwar & Anr.” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaring the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Weir as null and [2025:RJ-JP:30792] (2 of 3) [CR-188/2023] void and permanent injunction in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 10.07.2023 dismissed the said application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that admittedly, the suit pertains to agricultural land and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try it. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that prior to filing the suit, the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had filed a suit for declaration, partition of land and permanent injunction against the defendants in the Court of Assistant Collector, Weir District Bharatpur in June 1996 in which the plaintiffs contented that decree dated 28.10.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Weir is ineffective, null and void & inoperative in law against them. The said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs had knowledge about the said decree. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2019, after a lapse of 23 years. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that they had opportunity to challenge the said decree before the revenue court. So, the order passed by the trial court dated 10.07.2023 be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that defendants have filed a written statement, the trial court has framed the issues, and the matter has also been posted for the plaintiffs’ evidence. The defendants had also previously filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 26.05.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:30792] (3 of 3) [CR-188/2023] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the decree obtained on 28.10.1991 was fraudulent decree, so the civil court had jurisdiction to declare it as null and void. So, the present petition filed by the defendants 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 prior to filing the suit, the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction before the Assistant Collector, Weir in the year 1996 in which they had also sought relief for declaring the decree dated 28.10.1991 inoperative, null and void and inoperative in law. The plaintiffs had knowledge about the said decree in 1996 but they filed the present suit in the year 2019 after a lapse of 23 years to declare said decree dated 28.10.1991 as null and void. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being barred by limitation. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/57