[2025:RJ-JP:15703] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 362/2024 Radheshyam S/o Bihari Singh, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Village- Tasing,tehsil-Behror, Dist.- Alwar (Raj.). ----Petitioner-Defendant Versus 1. Bhagirath Singh S/o Late Sh. Umrao Singh, Aged About 72 Years, Grand Son Of Late Bhoor Singh, R/o Village- Tasingh, Tehsil-Behror, Dist.-Behror (Raj.). 2. Narendra Singh S/o Late Sh. Umaro Singh, Aged About 69 Years, Grand Son Of Late Bhoor Singh, R/o Village Tasing, Tehsil Behror, Dist.-Behror(Raj.) 3. Tej Singh S/o Late Sh. Umaro Singh, Aged About 64 Years, Grand Son Of Late Bhoor Singh, R/o Village Tasing, Tehsil Behror, Dist.-Behror(Raj.) Respondents-Plaintiffs 4. Balaji S/o Late Sh. Nathu Singh, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Village-Tasing, Tehsil-Behror, Dist. Alwar (Raj.) At Present R/o Near Kambal Industry, Surya Nagar Mode, Alwar (Raj.). 5. Sub Registrar, Behror, Dist.-Alwar (Raj.). 6. Through Tehsildar, State Of Rajasthan, Behror, Dist. - Alwar (Raj.) As Land Holder. 7. Laj Kanwar W/o Late Sh. Bachchan Singh, R/o Village- Tasing, Tehsil-Behror, Dist.-Alwar (Raj.) At Present R/o Janta Colony, Mungaska, Alwar (Raj.). 8. Jagdish Singh S/o Late Sho Bachchan Singh, R/o Village- Tasing, Tehsil-Behror, Dist.-Alwar (Raj.) At Present R/o Janta Colony, Mungaska, Alwar (Raj.). 9. Puran Singh W/o Late Sho Bachchan Singh, R/o Village- Tasing, Tehsil-Behror, Dist.-Alwar (Raj.) At Present R/o Janta Colony, Mungaska, Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order [2025:RJ-JP:15703] (2 of 3) [CR-362/2024] 08/04/2025 The civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Behror, Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.55/2023 titled as “Bhagirath Singh & Ors. Vs. Radheshyam & Ors.” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff- respondent Nos.1 to 3 (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of registered sale deed dated 11.02.2014 and permanent injunction against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant(s) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the defendant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the revenue court on 27.05.2014 mentioning that the disputed land was sold in his favour. In the said revenue suit, the defendant had filed a copy of the sale deed. So, the plaintiffs had knowledge regarding sale deed on 27.05.2014. Thus, the suit was time barred but the trial court vide order dated 22.08.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside because the plaintiffs had knowledge of so called sale deed in the year 2014. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the defendant had given a copy of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 09.01.2023. So, he had got knowledge regarding [2025:RJ-JP:15703] (3 of 3) [CR-362/2024] the sale deed on 09.01.2023. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 05.04.2023. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was within limitation. He further submits that any objection regarding limitation can be adjudicated after framing the issue. So, the trial court vide order dated 22.08.2024 has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the present civil revision 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 plaintiffs and perused the impugned order dated 22.08.2024. It is an admitted position that on 09.01.2023, the defendant had given a copy of the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs had got knowledge regarding the sale deed on 09.01.2023. The trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that the objection raised by the defendant is a mixed question of law and fact. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So. The present revision 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/132