[2025:RJ-JP:31783] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 356/2024 1. Varsha D/o Nihal Chand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Near Alwar Gate, Malakheda, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. Nihal Chand S/o Gyarsi Ram, R/o Near Alwar Gate, Malakheda, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus Hitesh Vashishth S/o Shri Pooran Chand Vahsisth, R/o Near Govind Dev Ji Temple, Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga Mr. Vinod Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 14/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 34/14/2021 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 respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for compensation of Rs. 25 Lakhs on account of defamation in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:31783] (2 of 3) [CR-356/2024] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiff had wrongly filed the suit before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh creating the cause of action that both the parties were residing at Rajgarh. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that as per Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, suit for malicious prosecution can only be filed at the place where the wrong was done or where the defendant resides. Learned counsel further submits that defendants, in the present case, are residing at Malakhera, District Alwar. So, the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar has jurisdiction to try the matter. So, the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be transferred to the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar for adjudication. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of ‘Dr. Balbir Singh Virk and Anr. Vs. Rajinder Kumar Mangal’ reported in 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1207. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh had jurisdiction to try the matter because wrong was also done at Rajgarh. So, the petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants as well as counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:31783] (3 of 3) [CR-356/2024] It is an admitted position that wrong was done at Malakhera, District Alwar. So, District and Sessions Judge, Alwar has jurisdiction for adjudication of the suit. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The civil revision petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The suit No. 34/14/2021 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh is transferred to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Alwar for fresh adjudication. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Alwar on 09.09.2025. Pending application(s),if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/55