[2025:RJ-JP:17838] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 198/2022 1. Gupta Chemical, Through Its Proprietor Govind Gupta, Aged About 50 Years, R/o B-144, Road No.9, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Sikar Road, Jaipur. 2. Banwari Lal Gupta S/o Sh. Hari Narayan Gupta, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Plot No. 57, Devi Path, Kanota Bagh, Jaipur. 3. Govind Gupta S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 57, Devi Path, Kanota Bagh, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Saket Health Education Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Sh. Mohit Sharma, Aged About 33 Years S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma, Presently Residing At 698, Vidyut Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L. L. Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 29/04/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.123/2021 (CIS No.1205/2021), whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that present suit is [2025:RJ-JP:17838] (2 of 2) [CR-198/2022] related to agriculture land. So, trial court had no jurisdiction to try and also stated that agreement that was mentioned in the plaint was not executed by the defendants. Plaintiff had liberty to file the suit as per the provision of Specific Relief Act. Plaintiff had also under valued the suit. So, suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed but trial court vide order dated 06.08.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order. As per contention of the plaint that defendant No.1 had given the documents of the agriculture land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint to the plaintiff. The said documents were seized by the Enforcement Directorate. So, they were in possession of the Enforcement Directorate. So, plaintiff had no right to transfer, sale etc. regarding disputed land but plaintiff had cleverly drafted the present suit and had not impleaded the Enforcement Directorate as a necessary party. So, without hearing the Enforcement Directorate, proceeding cannot be continued. So, order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the trial court is required to be set aside. While setting aside the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the trial court, the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants stands disposed of and the trial court is directed to implead the Enforcement Directorate as a necessary party and decide the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /97