[2025:RJ-JP:30091] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 30/2025 Chhoturam Meena S/o Shri Sultan Meena, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Bhedooli, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. ----Petitioner-Defendant No. 3 Versus 1. Ramkishore Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, R/o Village Bhedooli, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. 2. Bablu Ram Meena, S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, R/o Village Bhedooli, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. ----Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/Plaintiffs 3. Ramswarop Meena S/o Shri Mulyaram Meena, R/o Village Bhedooli, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. 4. Ramcharan Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, R/o Village Bhedooli, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. 5. Tehsildar Cum Sub Registrar, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. ----Proforma Respondent Nos. 3 to 5/defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 4 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 06/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 3 (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by Civil Judge, Raini, District-Alwar (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 34/8/2022, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 (D) read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit for [2025:RJ-JP:30091] (2 of 3) [CR-30/2025] cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 04.04.2019 and permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (D) read with Section 151 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that in plaint, plaintiff mentioned that the disputed land is in the name of defendant. Plaintiffs had claimed the said land on the ground that the said land belongs to ancestors. The plaintiffs had not filed the suit for declaration of the khatedari right before the revenue Court. So, without getting declared khatedari right, they had no right to file the present suit. So, the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant rightly observed that objection raised by the defendant would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid 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 plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that disputed land is in the name of defendant and plaintiffs had not declared themselves as a khatedar of the disputed land. So, in my considered opinion, without getting declared khatedari right, plaintiffs had no right to [2025:RJ-JP:30091] (3 of 3) [CR-30/2025] file the suit and no cause of action accrued to them. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed; the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being barred by jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/59