[2025:RJ-JP:17633] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2021 1. Smt. Jyoti Gupta W/o Sanjay Kumar Rajoria, R/o Bhagwatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur, Through General Power Of Attorney Sanjay Kumar S/o Radheyshyam, R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. 2. Swapna W/o Naresh, R/o Bhagwatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur, Through General Power Of Attorney Sanjay Kumar S/o Radheyshyam, R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur ---Defendant Nos.5 and 6-Petitioners Versus 1. Basanti Lal S/o Kanaram, R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. 2. Kamruddin S/o Habeer (Deceased) Through Legal Representative, R/o Near Chainpura Railway Phatak, Niwai, District Tonk. 2/1. Min Shahidan, aged about 80 years, W/o Kamruddin, R/o Near Chainpura Railway Phatak, Niwai, District Tonk. 2/2. Rafiq S/o Kamruddin, aged about 50 years, R/o Near Chainpura Railway Phatak, Niwai, District Tonk. 2/3. Hameed S/o Kamruddin, aged about 55 years, R/o Near Chainpura Railway Phatak, Niwai, District Tonk. 3. Fakruddin S/o Habib, aged about 60 years, R/o Near Chainpura Railway Phatak, Niwai, District Tonk. 4. Chhotuddin S/o Habib, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Chainpura Railway Phatak, Niwai, District Tonk. 5. Satyanarayan S/o Ramlal, Aged About 64 Years, (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives-R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimahopur. 5/1. Hanuman Prasad S/o Satyanarayan, R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimahopur. 5/2. Amit S/o Satyanarayan, R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimahopur. [2025:RJ-JP:17633] (2 of 4) [CR-12/2021] 5/3. Shilpi D/o Satyanarayan W/o Ashokji, R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimahopur. 5/4. Rinki D/o Satyanarayan W/o Ashok Ji, R/o Bhagawatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimahopur. 6. Tehsildar, Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain, Adv. Mr. V. K. Tamoliya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Teeka Ram Meena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 28 /04/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos. 5 and 6 (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.99/2020, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed of 10 biswas land situated in Bhagwatgarh and permanent injunction against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit before the trial court, which has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 27.11.2020. [2025:RJ-JP:17633] (3 of 4) [CR-12/2021] Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the present case relates to the agricultural land. The disputed land was allotted in the name of Ramlal, who is father of the defendant No.5-Satyanarayan. As per the contention, Ramlal had not cultivated the said land for two years after allotment. So, the said land was registered from Gair-Khatedari to Khatedari in the name of Habib S/o Ahmed Shah. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that only the defendant No.2-Kamruddin sold the said land to the plaintiff on 09.12.1999 in a sale consideration of Rs.2,400/-. So, the plaintiff filed the said suit for specific performance as well as cancellation of the sale deed regarding 10 biswas land. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the disputed land is entered in the revenue record in the name of the defendants. Unless and until the said mutation is changed in favour of defendant No.2, the said suit was not maintainable. The plaintiff as well as defendant No.2 should have filed the revenue suit for opening the mutation but the trial court vide order dated 27.11.2020 committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants because the objections raised by the defendants are mixed question of fact and law which would be adjudicated after [2025:RJ-JP:17633] (4 of 4) [CR-12/2021] adducing the evidence by 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 plaintiff and perused the impugned order dated 27.11.2020. It is an admitted position that the suit relates to the agricultural land which is in the name of the defendants. As per the contention of the plaintiff, he had purchased the said land from the defendant No.2. In my considered opinion, unless and until the disputed land is entered in the name of defendant Nos.2 to 4, the plaintiff had no right to file the said suit for specific performance as well as cancellation of the sale deed regarding 10 biswas land. So, the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The revision petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/89