[2025:RJ-JP:28612] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 40/2024 Gulshan Rai Malhotra S/o Shri Somnath Malhotra, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Plot No. 11/14 B, Govind Marg, Rajapark, Jaipur. ----Petitioner-Defendant No.2 Versus 1. 1/1. 1/2. 1/3. Lalchand @ Lalaram Sharma, (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. R/o Plot No. B-336, Sumer Nagar, Golyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Manbhar Devi W/o Late Lal Chand @ Lala Ram, Resident Of Plot No. B-336, Sumer Nagar, Golyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Vishal S/o Late Lal Chand @ Lala Ram, Resident Of Plot No. B-336, Sumer Nagar, Golyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Shalu D/o Late Lal Chand @ Lala Ram, Resident Of Plot No. B-336, Sumer Nagar, Golyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Kewalram Katara S/o Shri Daulatram Katara, R/o 62/233, Rataj Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 3. Sub-Registrar-I, Sanganer Office Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ---Proforma Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Daga, Adv. with Mr. R. S. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. S. L. Kumawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 30/07/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC [2025:RJ-JP:28612] (2 of 4) [CR-40/2024] against the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer in Civil Misc. Case No.01/2022, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed as well as the permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent/defendant Nos.2 & 3 (for short ‘the defendant Nos.2 & 3) in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC to the effect that the agreement dated 21.03.1995 is not properly stamped and the plaintiff has not paid the proper court fee. So, the said agreement is not admissible in the evidence. It was further stated that on the basis of the said agreement, the suit was filed after a delay of 26 years. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred but the trial court vide order dated 12.12.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiff had shown the value of the disputed plot in the agreement as Rs.17,266/- which is much less than the market value. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. V/s. Sri Anand Kumar & Ors. In [2025:RJ-JP:28612] (3 of 4) [CR-40/2024] Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2032/2025 decided on 02.04.2025. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed as well as the permanent injunction mentioning therein that the plaintiff had purchased the disputed plot by way of an agreement dated 21.03.1995 and since then he has been in ownership of the disputed plot but the defendant No.1 wrongly obtained the patta of the entire plot and illegally sold it to the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the said agreement is properly stamped or not, would be decided at the time of evidence and question of limitation would also be decided after the evidence of the parties as it is a mixed question of law and fact. So, the trial court vide order dated 12.12.2023 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the present petition 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 the plaintiff had purchased the disputed plot by way of an agreement from the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 wrongly obtained the patta of the entire plot and illegally sold it to the defendant. The plaintiff by way of the suit, sought the relief for permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed. The trial court vide order dated 12.12.2023 while dismissing the application filed by the defendant rightly came to [2025:RJ-JP:28612] (4 of 4) [CR-40/2024] the conclusion that the so called agreement is properly stamped or not, can not be decided at this stage and the question of limitation would also be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court vide order dated 12.12.2023 has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/74