[2025:RJ-JP:16152] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 18/2024 1. Prem Chand S/o Beni Prasad, Aged About 63 Years, R/o House No. 4088-B, Darjiyon Ka Rasta Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Padam Chand S/o Beni Prasad, Aged About 61 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Trilok Chand S/o Beni Prasad, Aged About 59 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Prakash Chand S/o Bhanwarlal Meena, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Bhanwarlal Meena, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Mahendra S/o Bhanwarlal Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Inderchand S/o Bhanwarlal Meena, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Rambabu S/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o 4088-B, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Meera D/o Prabhu Dayal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Gopi Devi W/o Prabhu Dayal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 8. Tara Chand S/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 9. Kamla D/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o House No. 4088, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Surajpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:16152] (2 of 4) [CR-18/2024] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R K Daga, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 16/04/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’), whereby the application filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (for short ‘the defendants’) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that plaintiffs- respondents (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for cancellation of document, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants and respondent Nos. 5 to 9 in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC mentioning that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred and since the plaintiffs only sought the relief of declaration and did not seek any relief for partition as well as possession, the suit was barred by law. It was also mentioned that unless the revenue rights of the plaintiffs are adjudicated, the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit for cancellation of the documents. Therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed but the trial Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 wrongly dismissed the application field by the defendants. Therefore, the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:16152] (3 of 4) [CR-18/2024] Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1). Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors. passed in Civil First Appeal No. 9519/2019 decided on 09.07.2020; (2.) Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (M/s) Vs. Shahjahan Begum (Smt.) passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 6/2012 decided on 20.03.2015; (3.) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Lrs. passed in Civil Appeal No. 2960/2019 decided on 13.03.2019; & (4.) C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Sennthil & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 500 of 2022; C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Nanjammal & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.-504 of 2022; C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Shanmugam & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 505 of 2022; C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Karupannan & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 506 of 2022; C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. K. Palanippan & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 502 of 2022; C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. N. Kalikrishnan & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 501 of 2022; C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Nanjammal & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 503 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2022. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf the plaintiffs I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the order dated 22.11.2023. [2025:RJ-JP:16152] (4 of 4) [CR-18/2024] While dismissing the application filed by the defendants, the trial Court clearly mentioned that objection with regard to limitation as well as cause of action were the mixed question of facts and law. So far as the other objections raised by the defendants were concerned, the trial Court noted that they could have been taken in the written statement and after framing the issues they would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants being bereft 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/105