[2025:RJ-JP:31338] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 223/2023 Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Registered Address B-3, Pink Tower, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Secretary Bhagchand Godha S/o Chand Mal Jain. ----Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Harishan Sharma (Deceased) Son Of Late Ladhu, Ramulal Son Of Shri Harikishan Sharma. 2. Kaluram Son Of Shri Harikishan Sharma, Resident Of Village Keshopura Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur. 3. Trilok Chand, Son Of Shri Harikishan Sharma, Resident Of Village Keshopura Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur. 4. Chuttanlal Sharma Son Of Shri Harikishan Sharma, Resident Of Village Keshopura Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur. 5. Anokhi Devi Wife Of Nanuram Sharma, Daughter Of Harikishan Sharma, Resident Of Village Goliawas Patrakar Colony, Mansarovar, District Jaipur. 6. Gulab Devi Wife Brij Mohan Sharma, Daughter Harikishan Sharma Village Jatawali Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. ----Plaintiffs/Respondents 7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 8. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/08/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:31338] (2 of 4) [CR-223/2023] This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short 'the defendant') under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 105/2023 titled as Harikishan & Ors. Vs. Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti & Ors., by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 6-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant and proforma respondents in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide its order dated 07.07.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. He also submits that, in the suit, the plaintiffs wanted to declare the registered sale deed dated 30.05.1983 as a null and void which was executed by their father Harikishan in favour of defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that, as per the contention in the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed 1/3rd share in 9 biswa in khasra No. 382 through their father Harikishan. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiffs had not got declared their khatedari right. So, without getting declared the khatedari right, they had no right to file the suit before the civil Court for cancellation of the registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiffs wrongly made the averment with regard to limitation that the [2025:RJ-JP:31338] (3 of 4) [CR-223/2023] defendant No. 3 had taken the possession in the year 2020. So, they came to know this fact. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the possession of the disputed land has already been taken by defendant No. 3 in the years 1992, 1995 and 1999. So, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Therefore, the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the petition filed by the defendant be allowed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 01.09.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Minor Mandri Murti Shree Yugalkishore Ji and ors. Vs. M/s Arpita Build Mart Pvt. Ltd. and ors. in civil first appeal No. 528/2023, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the judgment dated 01.09.2023 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the disputed land was converted. So, there was no need to get declared the khatedari right and the civil court had only jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed and the objections raised by the defendant with regard to limitation, would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Sua Devi Louhar vs. Shrawanram Louhar and Ors." in civil first appeal No. 286/2014 decided on 25.01.2021. [2025:RJ-JP:31338] (4 of 4) [CR-223/2023] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that after the conversion, the disputed land does not pertain to revenue land. Therefore, there was no need to get declared the tenancy right. The trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that, while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only averments of the plaint are to be taken into consideration and the matter with regard to limitation would be decided after evidence of the parties. Hence, the trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Consequently, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/61