[2025:RJ-JP:41502] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 378/2024 1. Shri Ishan Chandra Mukherjee Charitable Trust, Through Managing Trustee, Office Address At Main Haveli, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Kanti Nagar, Station Road, Jaipur 2. Indradeep Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, R/o Mukherjee Haveli, Kanti Nagar, Opposite Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur 3. Indraneeil Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, R/o Mukherjee Haveli, Kanti Nagar, Opposite Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Saurabh Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Smt. Indrani Mukherjee W/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Aprajita Mukherjee D/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Anamika Mukherjee D/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 5. Sandesh Moyal S/o Sh. Ramesh Moyal, R/o House No. 18/44, Bhatto Wali Gali, Mundara Mohalla, Back Side Of Shetrapal Hospital, Kachhari Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan M. No. 8829080804, 9829880804, 7737280804 6. Aditya Ghiya S/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar Ghiya, R/o House No. 18/24, Mill Niwas, Babu Mohalla, Kesarganj, Ajmer Rajasthan Mobile No. 9829880804 7. Sho., Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur 8. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jln Marg, Jaipur 9. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamp, Jaipur-1, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (2 of 13) [CR-378/2024] ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 4/2025 1. Shri Ishan Chandra Mukherjee Charitable Trust Through Managing Trustee, Office Address At Main Haveli Hathi Babu Ka Bagh Kanti Nagar Station Road, Jaipur. 2. Indradeep Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, R/o Mukherjee Haveli, Kanti Nagar, Opposite Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur. 3. Indraneeil Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, R/o Mukherjee Haveli, Kanti Nagar, Opposite Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Saurabh Mukherjee Son Of Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Smt. Indrani Mukherjee W/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 58 Years, R/o- Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Aprajita Mukherjee D/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 34 Years, R/o- Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Anamika Mukherjee D/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 5. Sandesh Moyal S/o Sh. Ramesh Moyal, R/o House No. 18/44, Bhatto Wali Gali, Mundara Mohalla, Back Side Of Shetrapal Hospital, Kachhari Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan M.no. 8829080804, 9829880804,7737280804. 6. Aditya Ghiya S/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar Ghiya, R/o House No. 18/24, Mill Niwas, Babu Mohalla, Kesarganj, Ajmer. Rajasthan Mobile No. 9829880804. 7. Sho, Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 8. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 9. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamp, [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (3 of 13) [CR-378/2024] Jaipur-1, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 5/2025 1. Sandesh Moyal S/o Sh. Ramesh Moyal, R/o House No. 18/44, Bhatto Wali Gali, Mundara Mohalla, Back Side Of Shetrapal Hospital, Kachhari Road, Ajmer, Raj. 2. Aditya Ghiya S/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar Ghiya, R/o House No. 18/24, Mill Niwas, Babu Mohalla, Kesarganj, Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. Saurabh Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Smt. Indrani Mukherjee W/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Saurabh Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee 3. Aprajita Mukherjee D/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Saurabh Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee 4. Anamika Mukherjee D/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mukherjee Building, Kanti Nagar, In Front Of Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Saurabh Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Aroop Mukherjee 5. Shri Ishan Chandra Mukherjee Charitable Trust, Through Managing Trustee, Office Address At Main Haveli, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Kanti Nagar, Station Road, Jaipur 6. Indradeep Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, R/o Mukherjee Haveli, Kanti Nagar, Opposite Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur 7. Indraneeil Mukherjee S/o Lt. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, R/o Mukherjee Haveli, Kanti Nagar, Opposite Polo Victory, Station Road, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (4 of 13) [CR-378/2024] 8. SHO, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur 9. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, JLN Marg, Jaipur 10. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamp, Jaipur-I, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar with Mr. vaibhav Nirmal Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat with Ms. Akriti Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Kaushik Mr. Nikhlesh Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/07/2025 1. These revisions petitions were preferred by petitioners- defendant(s) aggrieved from order dated 29.10.2024, 22.11.2024 and 11.11.2024 in civil suit No. 216/2024 (975/2024) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur Metro-II in a civil suit titled as “Saurabh Mukherjee Vs. Ishan Mukherjee Chandra Mukherjee Charitable Trust and Ors.” 2. A perusal of these revision petitions and also the impugned order indicate that applications under Order VII Rule 11, CPC were filed on different dates and same were disposed of by the trial court on successive dates and now these three revisions petitions aggrieved from three different orders passed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC were filed and same are clubbed and disposed of altogether by a common order. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners while relying upon judgment in Case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji (2020) AIR SC 3310, Rajendra Bajoria Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan AIR 2021 [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (5 of 13) [CR-378/2024] SC 4594, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal 2017 AIR (SC) 2653, T. Arvindandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 2421 and Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (2019) 3 SCC 692 laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court submits that it is duty of the Trial Court to examine the grounds raised by present petitioners when a specific objection about maintainability of civil suit, and jurisdiction of Civil Court is challenged, by defendants. He further referred the judgment in case of Panchu Lal Paharia Vs. Rajneesh Gupta and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 4264/2011) and Rohit Singh Vs. Visambhar Dayal (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 57/2013) and submitted that the suit is not maintainable and same is barred by law. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring para No. 10 of the plaint has submitted that the plaintiffs have mentioned a settlement dated 17.08.2022 and contrary to their own admission, instant civil suit has been filed by the plaintiffs. He further referred agreement and submitted that as per agreement, the land belong to trust and there is no individiual right to be decided by the Court, still a suit has been filed by the plaintiffs. He further submitted that the land in question is an agricultural land and the plaintiffs have no right to file a suit before the civil court as they are not a recorded Khatedar tenant of the land in question. He also submitted that unless plaintiffs got a declaration of Khatedar right in their favor, the civil suit is barred under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and as per ratio laid down in case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (supra). [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (6 of 13) [CR-378/2024] 5. Learned counsel for petitioners also referred Sections 20 and 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and submitted that the property in question belongs to a trust and Devsthan Department has already initiated the action, which has rightful jurisdiction and plaintiffs have no right to file a civil suit in a matter which requires consideration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. He further referred the facts narrated by the plaintiffs and submitted that, under the JDA Act 1982, a lease can only be cancelled or varied under the Act and not by a civil court by application of general law in civil court. He also referred the settlement deed and submitted that, only because of clever drafting, the plaintiffs have no right to file a civil suit, and in case of a public trust, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that, unless jurisdiction of civil suit is barred by any specific provision of law, civil court has a jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit. He further submitted that, Rajasthan Public Trust Act does not specifically bar jurisdiction of civil court, unless same is one of the subject-matter of the Act. He further submitted that, in the entire pleadings of the case, no document whatsoever has been filed to show that the property in question was transferred in the name of trust, and only trust has the ownership right of the property in question. He further reiterated that no title has been transferred to trust and currently the plaintiffs have a right and interest in the suit property as same is in the name of father of plaintiffs and uncle of plaintiffs and after death of father, the plaintiffs have a right to pursue the remedy before the Civil Court. [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (7 of 13) [CR-378/2024] 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioners. 8. In brief, the facts of the case are that Sourabh Mukherjee, Aparajita Mukherjee, Anamika Mukherjee as son and daughters and Indrani Mukherjee as wife of deceased Arup Mukherjee have filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction for the property mentioned in Para 2 of the plaint with pedigree of late Shri Ishan Mukherjee in Para 3 of the plaint. During pendency of the civil suit No. 216/2024 (975/2024), three different applications were filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, two by defendants Nos.1 to 3 and one by defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The first application of defendants Nos.1 to 3 was dismissed on 29.10.2024 and second on 22.11.2024. The applications filed by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 were dismissed on 11.11.2024. 9. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (8 of 13) [CR-378/2024] (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 10. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code. 11. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation. [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (9 of 13) [CR-378/2024] 12. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 14. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (10 of 13) [CR-378/2024] however, a drastic one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 16. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law. 17. In case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered Section 88, 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and laid down that, where the Khatedari rights are yet to be declared, the claimant-plaintiff, without being declaration of Khatedari right, cannot file a civil suit before civil court. The Khatedari rights have to be declared in pending litigation by a revenue court and not by civil court. In case of Panchu Lal Paharia Vs. Rajneesh Gupta and Ors. (supra), a co-ordinate bench of this court, after considering the provision of JDA Act 1982, has observed that the power of revocation or cancellation of deed is provided under Section 54-D of JDA Act. In [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (11 of 13) [CR-378/2024] case of Rohit Singh (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this court also considered provision under the JDA Act and held that, a civil suit is barred under Section 99 of JDA Act and plaint is liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. 18. Herein this case, first application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on 28.10.2024 wherein they have raised issue of improper valuation of Court fee under Section 24(e)of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. Thus, applications was dismissed by the Trial Court on 29.10.2024. It is an admitted position of law that except any ground raised under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11-(d) of CPC, if same is filed on any other ground then it may be decided after settling the issues and recording the evidence of the parties. It appears that in the first application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the petitioners- defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have not raised any ground which they have specifically raised in subsequently filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed on 22.11.2024. The second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed after disposal of application dated 29.10.2024. 19. In case of Bhanu Kumar Vs. Archana Jain (2005) 1 SCC 787, a Three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provision of res judicata after referring judgment in case of Satyadhan Goshal & Ors. Vs. SM. Deorajin Debi and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 941 and Prahalad Singh Vs. Col. Sukhdev Singh (1987) 1 SCC 727 held that it is now well- established that principle of res judicata applies at different stages of same proceedings. The parties are bound by the determination [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (12 of 13) [CR-378/2024] made earlier in the same proceedings unless the order has been changed or has been interpreted differently by a higher forum. The principle of constructive res judicata is applicable with full force. 20. Having considered the judgments as referred hereinabove, the subsequent application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable, and barred by res-judicata. The petitioners or defendants are at liberty to raise all the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the time of filing first application but later they cannot file a subsequent application with different ground. 21. In view of aforesaid, the disposal of second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be faulted. Thus, the grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner in revision petition No. 4/2025 is hereby devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed. 22. Another application dated 04.11.2024 is filed by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that the property in question belongs to a public trust and under Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred. Further, the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts while filing the plaint. We have considered these grounds. The counsel for respondents-plaintiffs have clearly stated that not a single document is filed on the record to show that the property is vested in trust and ownership has been transferred to the trust. The fact of settlement dated 17.08.2022 is specifically mentioned in the plaint. Further, establishment of a trust is also mentioned but nowhere it has been mentioned that the property belongs to a trust and the contention [2025:RJ-JP:41502] (13 of 13) [CR-378/2024] of the counsel for plaintiffs were not replied about vesting of property in the trust. The fact that a trust is made a party is not sufficient to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by invoking provisions under Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 23. Having considered aforesaid, the dismissal of applications by the trial court cannot be faulted, therefore, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not sufficient to allow these revisions petitions and the judgments referred by the learned counsel for petitioners are not applicable in the instant case. 24. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the revisions petitions No. 378/2024, 4/2025 and 5/2025 are hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any. 25. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /88-90-S