[2025:RJ-JP:19876] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 286/2024 1. Zahruddin S/o Haji Allauddin, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan). 2. Smt. Shaheen Parveen W/o Zahruddin, R/o Ward No. 18, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh District Tonk (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Imran Khan S/o Shri Sharif Mohammad, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan). 2. Smt. Neelofar W/o Imran Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan). 3. Amjad S/o Sharif Mohammad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh,district Tonk (Rajasthan). 4. Shammi @ Danda S/o Chhotu, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk(Rajasthan). 5. Hamseera Begum W/o Ashraf, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk )(Rajasthan). 6. Alafran Ashraf S/o Ashraf, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan). 7. Neeja Ashraf D/o Ashraf, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan). 8. Soyal Ashraf S/o Ashraf, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Town Todaraisingh, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan). ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:19876] (2 of 4) [CR-286/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma, Adv with Mr. Sparsh Bansal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madho Prapan Swami, Adv with Ms. Priyanka Barupal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 13/05/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Todaraisingh, District Tonk (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.23/2023, 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 respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants and respondent Nos.2 to 8 for declaration and permanent injunction in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. By way of this present suit defendants wanted to set aside the award passed by National Lok Adalat dated 10.02.2018. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that order of the National Lok Adalat can’t be challenged before the civil court but trial court vide order dated 30.05.2024 wrongly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants. He further submits that on account of compromise, Lok Adalat had decided the suit between [2025:RJ-JP:19876] (3 of 4) [CR-286/2024] the parties and wife of the plaintiff was a party before the National Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that defendants had only remedy to challenge the said award by way of writ petition, so order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on account of no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Bhargavi Constructions & Another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Others reported in 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 359; and (2) Virendra Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others in Civil Writ Petition No.14440/2023.” Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that plaintiff was not a party in the suit, which was decided before the Lok Adalat. Although, his wife was a party but she did not aware of the legal consequences and did not obtain any permission from him. The trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the dispute raised by plaintiff would be decided after taking evidence of the parties. So, trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. 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. It is an admitted position that plaintiff had challenged the order dated 10.02.2018 passed by the Lok Adalat. The award of [2025:RJ-JP:19876] (4 of 4) [CR-286/2024] the Lok Adalat can’t be challenged before the civil court and plaintiff had only remedy to challenge the said award by way of writ petition. So, present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The revision petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /94