[2025:RJ-JP:31090] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 366/2024 Sandesh Kumar Saxena S/o Sh. Devendra Saxena, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 68/162 Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan-302033. ----Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 Versus 1. Mahadev Gurjar S/o Sh. Laxminarayan Urf Lachu, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Bhimpura, Teh. Phagi, Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan. ---Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff 2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Malpura Dist. Tonk, Rajasthan. 3. Deputy Registrar, Malpura Dist. Tonk, Rajasthan. 4. Patwari, Patwar Halka Hindola Tehsil Malpura Dist. Tonk, Rajasthan. 5. Patwari, Patwar Halka Deval, Tehsil Manpura Dist. Tonk, Rajasthan. 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist. Collector, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Defendants-Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 12/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 1 (for short 'the defendant') under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Malpura, District-Tonk (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 46/2020, by which the trial Court dismissed [2025:RJ-JP:31090] (2 of 3) [CR-366/2024] the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.11.2014 and permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that, as per the agreement dated 27.11.2014, duration for the execution of the agreement was six months, but present suit was filed by the plaintiff after a lapse of more than 6 years. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the defendant had given a notice dated 21.02.2016 to the plaintiff for cancellation of the agreement, but the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court in civil revision petition No. 23/2023 titled as "Dr. Mahendra Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. Dr. Khushbeer Singh and Ors.". Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that as per the agreement dated 27.11.2014, the defendant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff had replied to the notice given by the defendant. The trial Court, while [2025:RJ-JP:31090] (3 of 3) [CR-366/2024] dismissing the application filed by the defendant, clearly mentioned that the point of limitation would be decided after evidence of the parties, as while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averment made in the plaint is to be seen. Therefore, the present petition filed by the defendant deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed by this court in Civil Revision Petition No. 40/2024 titled as "Gulshan Rai Malhotra Vs. Lalchand & Ors.". I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, averments made in the plaint are to be seen not the defence of the defendant. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that objection raised by the defendant with regard to limitation would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present 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) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/61