[2025:RJ-JP:9926] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 287/2024 In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.72/2021 1. Ashok Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Hindaun City, Hindaun City District Karauli(Raj). 2. Krishan Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar @ Billu, R/o Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj). 3. Deepesh Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar @ Billu, R/o Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj). 4. Manish Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar @ Billu, R/o Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj). 5. Dablu S/o Virendra Kumar @ Billu, R/o Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj). ----Petitioners (Non-applicants) Versus Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o Shri Pooranmal, R/o Mohalla Keshavpura, Hindaun City, District Karauli. ----Respondent (Applicant) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr. Utkarsh Goyal for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 04/03/2025 1. The instant civil miscellaneous application is filed by applicant-respondent on the ground that this Hon’ble Court while considering S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.72/2021 titled as ‘Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi’ has directed trial court not to proceed in civil suit in wake of judgment in case of D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2015 titled as K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj. [2025:RJ-JP:9926] (2 of 3) [CMAP-287/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the applicant while referring judgment in case of Sankarlal Nadani Vs. Sohanlal Jain : MANU/SC/0462/2022 also reported as AIR 2022 SC 1813, submits that the issue was already decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the order dated 11.01.2022 may be recalled and trial court be permitted to begin the proceedings which was stayed by this Hon’ble Court. He further referred order dated 14.07.2023 in case of Balram (deceased) through LRs and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (deceased) through LRs and Ors. : S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 81/2023 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 139/2018 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioners. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. A S.B. Civil Revision Petition was preferred by defendants, aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 28.07.2020 in a civil suit filed for eviction and recovery of rent by present applicant/non-petitioner Rukmani Devi. 6. During pendency of revision petition, it was brought on record that after judgment dated 26.10.2017 in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2015: K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj, wherein it was held that once the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, was extended to the municipal area the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between landlord and a tenant. Since the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by way of SLP and same was stayed by Hon’ble [2025:RJ-JP:9926] (3 of 3) [CMAP-287/2024] Supreme Court. Therefore, a Co-ordinate Bench while disposing of a revision on 11.01.2022 has stayed the final judgment in civil suit pending before the trial Court till an order was passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj (supra). 7. Now, this issue was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sankarlal Nadani Vs. Sohanlal Jain (supra) and after considering judgment of the Division Bench in case of K. Ramnarayan Khandelwal Vs. Pokhraj Banthiya (supra) held that rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences (on the date of filing of the suit). It was held that the plaintiff was entitled for a decree in the suit for possession and such a decree does not suffer from any illegality. A similar issue was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench in case of Balram (deceased) through LRs and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (deceased) through LRs and Ors. (supra). 8. In view of aforesaid, the order dated 11.01.2022 whereby the suit proceeding pending before learned trial court was stayed and learned trial court was refrained from passing a final order require to be recalled. 9. Thus, the civil miscellaneous application is hereby allowed and the order dated 11.01.2022 is modified to the extent that the trial court is at liberty to pass a final judgment in suit pending before it filed by plaintiff - Rukmani Devi. 10. A copy of this order be also sent to the trial court for compliance. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/215 supp