[2025:RJ-JP:19486] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 7/2024 Rajiv Jain S/o Late Shri Dhupchand Pandya, R/o Outside Surajpolgate, Mohan Badi, Galta Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Babulal S/o Shri Ramnarayan, R/o Kharwalo Ki Dhani, Rupa Ki Nangal, Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, Tehsil And District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jaipur, Office Address At Collectorate Office, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Additional District Collector(Stamp), Jaipur R/o Collectorate Office,banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Tehsildar, Jaipur R/o Collectorate Office, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Station House Officer, Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur Metropolitan(North), Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gulista Bano, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/05/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 21.10.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarters, Amer in Civil Suit No.20/2023 (CIS No.25/2023), whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:19486] (2 of 4) [CR-7/2024] Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants for declaring the registered sale deed dated 26.08.1993 as null and void and permanent injunction. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that defendant No.1 filed an application before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that the said sale deed was executed on 26.08.1993 by father of plaintiff because he had 1/2 share of the disputed property, which was registered on 16.07.1994. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact in the plaint that prior to registration of the sale deed, one declaration deed was executed by the plaintiff on 30.08.1993 that he had knowledge regarding sale deed and he had no share and interest in the property. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that the plaintiff had filed a suit after a lapse of about 30 years and no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.1 be allowed and the order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Uma Devi Vs. Anand Kumar & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 703; (2) Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656; (3) Dilboo & Ors. Vs. Dhanraji & Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 702; (4) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601; (5) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366; (6) T. Arivandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal & [2025:RJ-JP:19486] (3 of 4) [CR-7/2024] Anr. reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467; (7) Prahlad Bagdi Vs. Gayatri Agrawal & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online Raj. 124; (8) Leeladhar & Ors. Vs. Anwar Patel in Civil Revision No.275/2011 decided on 8.03.2016; (9) Kokilaben Vs. Gangaram Shakarabhai reported in Manu/GJ/2114/2021 and (10) Annant Pal Singh Vs. Sumer Singh in S.B. Civil Revision No.38/2010 decided on 22.12.2016. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and submits that regarding said sale deed, plaintiff came to know in the year 2022 when the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. After he had obtained the copy of the sale deed, he had mentioned the dates regarding cause of action in his plaint. So far as, point of limitation is concerned it would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.1 being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. In plaint, plaintiff stated that disputed land belongs to Shyobux and after his death, 1/2 share of the land was mutated in favour of Ramnarayan father of the plaintiff. Ramnarayan in his life time sold the disputed property to defendant No.1. Plaintiff had challenged the said sale deed dated 26.08.1993, which was registered on 16.07.1994 on account of ancestral property after a lapse of 30 years and as per the contention of defendant No.1, plaintiff had executed a declaration deed in the year 1993 that he [2025:RJ-JP:19486] (4 of 4) [CR-7/2024] had knowledge regarding the said sale deed. So, in my considered opinion, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit in the year 2022. The present suit was filed after a lapse of 30 years. So, present suit is barred by limitation as well as no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. So, trial court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.1 deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant No.1 is allowed. The order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the trial court is set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /95