[2025:RJ-JP:25368] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 17/2025 Vijaya Choudhary W/o Jaisingh Choudhary, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 1/74, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ramniwas S/so Hanuman, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Indrapura, Tan Jisukh Ka Bas, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu Mobile No. 9983711515 2. Hanuman S/o Mahalaram, Aged About 93 Years, R/o Indrapura, Tan Jisukh Ka Bas, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu 3. Jaisingh S/o Hanuman, R/o 1/74, Malviya Nagar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 4. Satyapalsingh S/o Hanuman, R/o 53/44, V.t. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 5. Radha D/o Hanuman W/o Jwalaprasad, R/o House No .1, Housing Board, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu 6. Manju D/o Hanuman W/o Pyarelal, R/o Housing Board, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pyare Lal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 10/07/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.6 (for short ‘the defendant No.6’) against the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Original Suit No.1/2021, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:25368] (2 of 3) [CR-17/2025] Learned counsel for the defendant No.6 submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 25.11.2019 and permanent injunction against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendant No.6 also submits that defendant No.6 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court that no cause of action was accrued to the plaintiff because disputed land was in the ownership of respondent No.2-Hanuman. Without getting declared the khatedari rights, the plaintiff had no right to file the suit but trial court had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.6. Learned counsel for the defendant No.6 also submits that plaintiff also filed a revenue suit regarding declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land against the respondent Nos.2 to 6 before SDO, Malsisar. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.6 be allowed and order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.6 and submits that the plaintiff had 1/6th share in the disputed land. Sale deed was executed without any sale consideration. So, sale was not legally tenable. Plaintiff wanted to get cancelled the sale deed for which only the Civil court had only jurisdiction. So, trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.6. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.6 being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Principal Seat of this Court in the case of [2025:RJ-JP:25368] (3 of 3) [CR-17/2025] Khema & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhagwan & Ors. reported in 1995 (3) WLC 440. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.6 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that disputed land was in the khatedari of respondent No.2-Hanuman. Respondent No.2- Hanuman had sold the disputed land to the defendant No.6. Plaintiff filed a suit before the revenue court regarding declaration of his khatedari and partition. So, in my considered opinion, without declaring khatedari rights, plaintiff had no right to file the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. So, trial court had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.6. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.6 deserves to be allowed. The present revision petition filed by the defendant No.6 is allowed and the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of action. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /98