[2025:RJ-JP:18222] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 24/2019 1. Nand Kishore S/o Jamnalal, R/o Chabra 2. Smt. Kanchan Kumari W/o Ramswarup, R/o Chabra 3. Bhanu Kumar S/o Kailash Chand, R/o Chabra 4. Rajnish Kumar S/o Kailash Chand, R/o Chabra 5. Avanish Kumar S/o Kailash Chand, R/o Chabra 6. Archana D/o Kailash Chand, R/o Chabra 7. Smt. Sudha Widow Of Kailash Chand, R/o Chabra Tehsil Chabra District Baran (Raj) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Kanyabai D/o Madholal W/o Shankar Lal, R/o Village Antana Tehsil Atru District Baran (Raj) 2. 3. 4. Chhotibai D/o Madholal W/o Devlal, R/o Village Khedi Tehsil Chhipabarod At Present Atru Tehsil Atru District Baran (Raj) State of Govt. through District Collector, Baran District Baran (Raj.) State Govt. through Tehsildar and Sub Ragistrar, Tehsil Chhabra District Baran ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J K Singhi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Anuroop Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Adv. & Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv. for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 01/05/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:18222] (2 of 4) [CR-24/2019] This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Chabra, District-Baran (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.49/2015, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 25.10.1985 and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC mentioning that the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2015. He further submits that plaintiffs wrongly mentioned that the cause of action accrued on 05.10.2015 when they came to know about the sale deed dated 25.10.1985. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. They had to file the suit within 3 years of the execution of the document. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs had not paid the court fees as per the market value of the disputed property. Market value of the suit property is Rs. 11,21,40,000/- but they had valued the suit at Rs. 11,000/-. The trial Court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants and wrongly came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was on sufficient court fees and wrongly observed that the issue of cause of action would be decided after evidence of the parties. Therefore, the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by [2025:RJ-JP:18222] (3 of 4) [CR-24/2019] the trial Court be set aside and the revision petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Mahendra Singh Ranawat Vs. Bhagwati Devi and Ors. in civil revision petition No. 151/2016 decided on 03.02.2017. 2. Chotu Singh Vs. Seema Kanwar and Ors. in civil revision petition No. 150/2021 decided on 06.09.2023. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf the plaintiffs. Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Adv. and Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv. appears for respondent Nos.3 and 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the order dated 05.12.2018. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs wanted to get cancelled the sale deed dated 25.10.1985 and in this regard plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the year 2015. Plaintiffs mentioned in the suit that they came to know regarding the sale deed on 17.09.2015. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error in giving the finding that cause of action was a mixed question of law and fact. It is also an admitted position that sale deed was executed by co-tenants, who were the brother and relatives of the plaintiffs. So, contention of the plaintiffs that they came to know regarding the sale deed dated 25.10.1985 on 17.09.2015 is not tenable. Admittedly, suit for cancellation of sale deed had to be filed within 3 years of the execution of the document. So, the finding of the trial Court that cause of action [2025:RJ-JP:18222] (4 of 4) [CR-24/2019] was a mixed of law and fact, is not sustainable. Therefore, the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petition filed by the defendants is allowed and the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the trial Court is set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being barred by limitation. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/40