[2025:RJ-JP:29163] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 268/2022 1. Ganpat Lal S/o Devi Shankar, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Chomhala, Tehsil Gangdhaar, District Jhalawar(Raj.) 2. Mahendra Singh Jodhana S/o Sohan Singh Jodhana, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gangdhaar, Tehsil Gangdhaar, District Jhalawar (Raj.). 3. Anurag Singh S/o Raghu Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gangdhaar, Tehsil Gangdhaar, District Jhalawar (Raj.). 4. Anil Kumar S/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Chomhala, Tehsil Gangdhaar., District Jhalawar (Raj.). ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Shri Purushottam Lal S/o Devi Shankar, Aged About 89 Years, R/o Chawdi Bazar, Gangdhaar, Tehsil Gangdhaar, District Jhalawar (Raj.). ---Respondent/Plaintiff 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jhalawar (Raj.). 3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Gangdhaar, District Jhalawar(Raj.). 4. Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office Gangdhaar, District Jhalawar (Raj.). 5. Ramkanya Devi Widow Of Ramchandra Ji, R/o Gangdhaar, Tehsil Gangdhaar, District Jhalawar (Raj.). ----Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri Ms. Bismaad Kaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Sharma for Dr. Mahesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 04/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:29163] (2 of 4) [CR-268/2022] Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.01/2022, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 04.05.2022 and permanent injunction against the defendants and other defendants in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the plaintiff in para No. 5 of the plaint clearly mentioned that he had filed a suit for declaration of the khatedari right in relation to the land mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint and defendant No.1- Ganpatlal had also filed a suit for partition in which plaintiff had filed the counter-claim and the same is pending before the Revenue Court. Till today, name of the plaintiff is not entered in the revenue record, he had no title. So, without declaration of the khatedari right, sale deed dated 04.05.2022 cannot be challenged but the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Geeta Devi (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Pushap Chand & Ors., reported in 2019(1) RRT 43 [2025:RJ-JP:29163] (3 of 4) [CR-268/2022] (2) Shri Ram & Anr. Vs. 1st Additional District Judge and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 1250 (3) Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors., reported in 2019(1) RRT 291. (4) Rukmani Vs. Bhola & Ors., reported in 2012(2) WLC (Raj.) 797 Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of the khatedari right which is pending. Defendant No.1 had also filed a suit for partition in which the plaintiff had filed a counter-claim. Defendant No.1 has withdrawn the suit for partition however the counter- claim of the plaintiff is pending. So, it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. Suit for cancellation of the sale deed is maintainable before the civil court. So, the trial Court has 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 on the following judgments:- (1) Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 (2) Maniram and Ors. Vs. Mamkori and Ors., in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 72/2019, decided on 09.03.2021 (3) Bhagwan Sahay and ors. Vs. Sadhuram, in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 120/2022, decided on 07.05.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:29163] (4 of 4) [CR-268/2022] 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 for declaration of the khatedari right, suit is pending before the Revenue Court, but for cancellation of sale deed only civil court has power to cancel it. So, it cannot be said that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. 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 Ritu/62