[2025:RJ-JP:19757] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 216/2024 1. Smt. Girja Kanwar W/o Late Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Post Sonva, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.) 2. Shri Sangarm Singh S/o Late Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Post Sonva, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.) 3. Shri Amar Deep Singh S/o Late Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Post Sonva, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.) 4. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar D/o Late Raghuveer Singh W/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Post Soyla, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.) 5. Smt. Bhula Kanwar D/o Late Raghuveer Singh W/o Prithviraj Singh Rajawat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bada Gaon, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk (Raj.) 6. Smt. Sona Kanwar D/o Late Raghuveer Singh W/o Kuldeep Singh Hada, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Devpura, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.) 7. Priyanka Singh D/o Late Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Post Sonva, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.) ----Non-applicants/Petitioners Versus Bhanwar Singh Solanki S/o Late Shri Gulab Singh Solanki, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Shiv Nagar, Mahadevali, Tonk, District Tonk Present R/o Flat No. 301, Plot No. 94, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent [2025:RJ-JP:19757] (2 of 5) [CR-216/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Kalwatia Mr. Ritik Singh Solanki HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/03/2025 1. The instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioners- non applicants aggrieved from order dated 06.05.2024 in Civil Suit No.1/2021 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Tonk, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that respondent-Bhanwar Singh Solanki has filed a petition under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1957’) and the petitioners-non applicants are non agriculturist, therefore, a petition under the Act of 1957 is not maintainable before the trial Court. He further submitted that unless the applicant is able to establish jurisdiction to file application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957, the application cannot continue before the trial Court. He also submitted that the petitioners have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for dismissal of application of respondent- applicant but same was dismissed by learned trial Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:19757] (3 of 5) [CR-216/2024] 4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-applicant has filed an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 stating that Raghuveer Singh was an agriculturist and he purchased 19 plots from petitioner on a total sale consideration of ₹70 lakh but out of ₹70 lakh he has paid ₹5 lakh in cash and for remaining ₹65 lakh, he issued cheques but same were dishonoured and returned with remark of ‘insufficient fund’. The applicant has filed proceeding under Section 6 of the Act of 1957, for recovery of money. 5. The petitioners (non-applicants) are legal heirs of deceased agriculturist Raghuveer Singh, expired on 05.09.2020. The non- applicants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that on basis of agreement to sell dated 25.04.2018, the suit is filed and same is not maintainable under the Act of 1957. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the objection raised by non-applicants is a mixed question of fact and law. 6 The principles of law governing the disposal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were reiterated in case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal & Another : (1977) 4 Scc 467, Saleem Bhai and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors : (2003) 1 SCC 557 and Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) through LRs and Ors. : 2020 SCC OnLine (SC) 562 and held that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the trial Court is duty bound to restrict itself upon plaint and documents annexed or relied in plaint. No amount of defence whether raised in any written statement or an application can be considered. The purpose of application is to [2025:RJ-JP:19757] (4 of 5) [CR-216/2024] curb the frivolous litigation at nebulous stage of the litigation without resorting to a full fledged trial. 7. Here in this case, an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 was filed by Bhanwar Singh Solanki against legal heirs of Raguveer Singh with a statement of claim. The facts narrated in the application indicate that borrower Raghuveer Singh was an agriculturist. After his death on 05.09.2020, the application was filed against his legal heirs. The application is filed on ground that the matter pertains to sell of residential plots and after dishonour of cheques, an option before applicant was to file case under Section 138 of NI Act, and But no application under the Act of 1957 be filed for recovery of debt. 8. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC provides that if a plaint does not disclose a cause of action or it is barred by any law from the statement in the plaint then same shall be rejected. 9. Here in this case, the petitioners-non-applicants have not mentioned any provision of law under which the application is barred. The petitioners mentioned that there is an option to file a proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act but the option is to be exercised by applicant-respondent and same cannot be forced. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be allowed, if the plaint is barred by any law but not otherwise. 10. In reply to the application, respondent-applicant has provided details of agriculture holding of Raguveer Singh and as per applicability of the Act of 1957, the applicant has filed a petition before the trial Court. There is no specific bar of institution of proceeding before debt relief Court but the [2025:RJ-JP:19757] (5 of 5) [CR-216/2024] petitioners are at liberty to raise this defence in their reply and a specific issue can be framed and after evidence same can be decided but the objection is beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Thus, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the revision petition sans merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Misc. application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/101