[2025:RJ-JP:16944] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1/2025 Brahma Meena Wife Of Jag Singh, Resident Of Antarheda, Tehsil Mahuva, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Anuraj Mothiya S/o Mahesh Chand, Father/o Mahesh Chand, Resident Of Kirwada, Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Gan- gapur City, Rajasthan. 2. Sub Registrar Mahuva, Tehsil Mahuva, Distt. Dausa, Ra- jasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 23 /04/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-de- fendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa in Civil Suit No.40/2024, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 12.01.2015 and permanent injunction against the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that defendant filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff had not paid any court fees and by way of the suit which was instituted in the year 2024, [2025:RJ-JP:16944] (2 of 3) [CR-1/2025] the plaintiff wanted to cancel the sale deed dated 12.01.2015 after a period of 9 years. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that as per Section 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, suit for cancellation of the instrument should be filed within three years of its execution. The trial court had committed an error in observing that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgment:-(1) Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shahjahan Begum reported in 2015 (4) RLW 3567 (Raj.); (2) Ramisetty Venkatanna and Another Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 521; (3) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366; and C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Santhil and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1330. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that at the time of filing the suit stamps were not available, so he paid the requisite court fees after leave of the court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the defendant had assured him that he would get registered one plot situated at Jaipur in his name but defendant had not complied with the same. So, the present suit was filed after denial of the defendant. So, trial court rightly held that the question of limitation being mixed question of law and fact would be decided after taking the evidence of the [2025:RJ-JP:16944] (3 of 3) [CR-1/2025] parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being de- void 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 plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid the requisite court fees after the stamps were made available. So far as, question of limitation is concerned, plaintiff in his suit clearly mentioned that defendant promised him to execute a registry of the plot situated at Jaipur in his favour but the same was not complied with despite repeated requests. Finally, when defendant denied to execute the same, the plaintiff filed the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed. So, in my considered opinion, trial court has rightly held that question of the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and would be decided after taking 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, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /116