[2025:RJ-JP:20199] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 312/2024 Anita Choudhary W/o Shri Paburam Choudhary, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Tejiwala, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District - Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Sumitra W/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Moond, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kishanpura, Tehsil Chomu, District - Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sikander Ali Chopdar, Adv. with Mr. Virendra Yadav, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 14/05/2025 The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 43/2024, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit against the defendant for partition and permanent injunction in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by law because by way of present suit, plaintiff wanted to determine her shares in company- Hari Hira Agro Pvt. Ltd. As per the contention of the plaintiff in the [2025:RJ-JP:20199] (2 of 3) [CR-312/2024] plaint, in said company defendant as well as plaintiff were partner and her share was 49% and defendant's share was 50% but due to ill motive, she was removed from the post of Director and defendant wanted to sell the plot of the company without any right. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiff also made the averment in the plaint that she had initiated the proceedings before the Company Law Board and also submitted that the determination of the share in the company is to be adjudicated by the Company Law Board and not by civil Court but the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that as per Section 430 of the Companies Act, civil Court had no jurisdiction. So, the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by law. Learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Gaurav Jain and Anr. Vs. Ajaya Anchlia and Ors." in civil revision petition No. 3/2016 on 30.01.2016. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and submits that plaintiff had not sought any relief with regard to company. She wanted to get partitioned the immovable property and sought the injunction. It is in the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. [2025:RJ-JP:20199] (3 of 3) [CR-312/2024] Therefore, the present civil revision petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 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 defendant and plaintiff had formed a company in the name of "Hari Hira Agro Food Pvt. Ltd." in which share of the plaintiff was 49% and defendant's share was 50%. As per the contention of the plaintiff, share of the plaintiff was decreased and defendant wanted to evict her from the company and to remove her from the post of Director and also wanted to sell the immovable property of the company. In my considered opinion, the trial Court wrongly entertained the present suit. As per Section 430 of the Companies Act, civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff being barred by Law, therefore, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by Law. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/84