[2025:RJ-JP:31452] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 284/2024 Ramnarain S/o Late Shri Bhura @ Bhoriya, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Srikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur, Presently Resident Of Siroli, Dhani Bada Wali, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. ----Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 Versus 1. Gopal Adopted S/o Late Shri Harnath, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Srikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. ----Respondent-Plaintiff 2. 2/1. 2/2. 2/3. 2/4. Satyanarain Sharma S/o Shri Kalyansahai Sharma, R/o Village Srikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan (Deceased During Suit) Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Satyanarain, R/o Village Srikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan Raju S/o Late Shri Satyanarain, R/o Village Srikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan. Mukesh S/o Late Shri Satyanarain, R/o Village Srikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan Mayadevi D/o Late Shri Satyanarain, R/o Village Srikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Kaluram Yadav S/o Late Shri Madholal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Siroli, Dhani Bada Wali, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur 4. Vijaysingh Kulhari S/o Shri Nahar Singh Kulhari, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Near Bais Godam Pulia, Civil Lines Area, Jaipur City, Distt. Jaipur 5. Sub Registrar, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur 6. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur, In The Capacity Of Landholder ----Respondent-Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanay Goyal, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:31452] (2 of 4) [CR-284/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 13/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 1 (for short 'the defendant') under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur Metro-I, Sanganer, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for declaration of adoption deed and Will as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the suit because in his plaint, the plaintiff mentioned that he came to know the Will dated 22.05.1993 on 25.11.2003. That fact was not true. The plaintiff knew the so-called will on 23.02.1997, when he procured the copy of the jamabandi before purchasing the land in question from the Gyarsi Devi on 17.02.1999. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the sale deed was executed by the Gyasri Devi in which plaintiff had written the name of his father as Ram Narayan. So, he was not adopted by Harnath but the trial Court [2025:RJ-JP:31452] (3 of 4) [CR-284/2024] vide its order dated 03.08.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only averments of the plaint are to be considered not the defence of the defendants. Plaintiff in his plaint, clearly mentioned that he came to know the fact with regard to disputed will on 25.11.2003. He also submits that the cause of action and point of limitation are to be decided after evidence of the parties because both are the mixed question of law and facts. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only averments of the plaint are to be considered not the defence of the defendants. With regard to cause of action, the plaintiff clearly mentioned in his plaint that he came to know about the disputed will on 25.11.2003. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that question with regard to cause of action and limitation would be decided after evidence of the parties because both are mixed question of law and fact. So, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:31452] (4 of 4) [CR-284/2024] Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/56