[2025:RJ-JP:30786] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 287/2023 Asha Goyal W/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Goyal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 68/81 V.t. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 Versus 1. Omprakash Saini S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. 307, Scheme No. 27, Sachivalaya Vihar, Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj). ---Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Shri Kailash Chand Goyal S/o Shri Namalum, R/o 68/81, V.T. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj) (Deceased Before Filing Of Suit). ----Respondent-Defendant No. 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 11 /08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 1 (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer (for short 'the trial Court') in civil case No. 289/2023 titled as "Omprakash Saini Vs. Asha Goyal and Anr." 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 No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent No. 2, [2025:RJ-JP:30786] (2 of 3) [CR-287/2023] in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 10.10.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that, in the plaint, the plaintiff stated that on 04.08.2023, the defendant and respondent No. 2, along with other persons, came to plot No. 307 to take illegal possession and threatened the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that respondent No. 2, who is the husband of the defendant, died in the year 2007. Therefore, there was no occasion for the deceased to have come to the plot and tried to take possession. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the defendant is in government service and was present at the office on 04.08.2023. So, the plaintiff wrongly pleaded for the cause of action. So, the revision petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the suit be dismissed. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order. While deciding the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, averments of the plaint is to be seen. Contention of the defendant that, her husband died in the year 2007, and therefore, he could not have been present on 04.08.2023 and she was also on duty at that time. So, in my considered opinion, since the defendant was on duty, she could not come at the disputed plot. However, the cause of action is a bundle of facts which would be decided after evidence of the [2025:RJ-JP:30786] (3 of 3) [CR-287/2023] parties. Therefore, the trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, 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) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/58