[2025:RJ-JP:18891] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 263/2023 1. Smt. Pooja Sangar W/o Shri Gaurav Sangar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o B-185, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 2. Gaurav Sangar S/o Late Shri Madan Lal Sangar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o B-185, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioners-Defendant Nos.1 & 3 Versus 1. Pratishtha Sangar W/o Shri Jaydeep Sharma D/o Late Shri Madan Lal Sangar, R/o B-185, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur At Present R/o Ii/77, A.g. Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur Plaintiff 2. Smt. Latarani Sangar W/o Late Shri Madan Lal Sangar, R/o B-185, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 3. Rohit Sangar S/o Late Shri Madan Lal Sangar, R/o B-185, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 4. Smt. Kshitiz Sangar W/o Shri Surendra Singh D/o Shri Madan Lal Sangar, R/o 7/324, Sector-07, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 5. Sub-Registrar-Iii, Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara, Jaipur 6. Sub-Registrar-Vii, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manjeet Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Adv. Ms. Prathishtha Sunger, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 06/05/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section [2025:RJ-JP:18891] (2 of 4) [CR-263/2023] 115 CPC against the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.42/2022, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition and declaration of gift deed dated 09.06.2020 as null and void and permanent injunction in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 16.09.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit because for the disputed property, another suit was pending between the same parties before the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that as per gift deed, Patta was issued in favour of the defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiff had not valued the suit properly. The plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of forged Will and FIR was also lodged against her at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur in relation to the said forged Will. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on account of non disclosure of cause of action. [2025:RJ-JP:18891] (3 of 4) [CR-263/2023] Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment passed the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himalaya Vintrade Private Limited Vs. Md. Zahid & Anr. reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 782. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that both the suits were separate and the trial court while deciding the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC observed that at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of the plaint are required to be looked into. He also submitted that the plaintiff in her plaint clearly mentioned that the disputed property was procured out of joint business income. So, she wanted division of the said property and she had paid sufficient court fees. So, the trial court rightly dismissed 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. 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 the plaintiff in her plaint clearly mentioned that the disputed property was purchased from income of the joint business and she wanted division of the disputed property and she also challenged the so-called gift deed dated 09.06.2020 executed by her father in favour of the defendant No.1. So far as the question of suit being barred by law was concerned, the trial court also noted that defendant had earlier filed an application under Section 10 CPC which was [2025:RJ-JP:18891] (4 of 4) [CR-263/2023] dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 09.05.2023 and the subject matter of both the sides was different. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court 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/111