[2025:RJ-JP:32478] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 2/2024 1. Beena D/o Satyanarayan W/o Rajkapur, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kishori, Tehsil Thanagaji At Present Mubarikpur Road, Naugavan, District Alwar Rajasthan 2. Lali Devi W/o Pappuram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Kishori, Tehsil Thanagaji District Alwar Rajasthan ----Petitioners-Defendants Versus Dinesh S/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kishori Tehsil Thanagaji Alwar Rajasthan ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siya Ram Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 20/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Thanagaji, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.34/47/2023, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 28.08.2003 in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:32478] (2 of 3) [CR-2/2024] 06.10.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that in the plaint, the plaintiff mentioned that he is the adopted son of Late Satyararyan but he did not mention as to when was he adopted and when the adoption ceremony was performed. The plaintiff has not filed any application for opening the mutation, therefore no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that by way of the suit, the plaintiff wants to get declared himself as adopted son of Late Satyararyan, he has claimed 1/2 share in the disputed property and also requested to get cancelled the sale deed dated 28.08.2023 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 as null and void to the extent of his 1/2 share. These questions being the mixed questions of law and fact, would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the trial court vide order dated 06.10.2023 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited V/s. Ashok Vidyarthi and Ors. Reported in 2023 INSC 1043; [2025:RJ-JP:32478] (3 of 3) [CR-2/2024] (2) Khurshid & Ors. V/s. Hamid & Anr. reported in 2025: RJ- JP:16709; I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that declaration of the plaintiff as adopted son is a question, which would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court vide order dated 06.10.2023 has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition 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/63