[2025:RJ-JP:45327] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4762/2025 1. Smt Rukmani Devi Daughter of Harinayaran, 2. Smt. Raja Devi Daughter of Harinayaran, 3. Smt. Ratni Devi Daughter of Harinayaran, (Deceased) 3/1. 3/2. 3/3. 3/4. 3/5. 4. Mukesh Sharma Son of Radheshyam Rajesh Kumar Sharma Son of Radheshyam Sharma, Sharda Devi Daughter of Radheshyam, Parvati Daughter of Radheshyam, Champalata Daughter of Radheshyam, Smt. Prem Devi Daughter of Harinayaran, 5. Smt. Manbhar Devi Alias Mohnidevi Daughter of Harinayaran, 6. Smt. Manju Devi Daughter of Harinayaran, (Deceased) 6/1. Varsha Sharma Daughter of Jugal Kishor Sharma 6/2. Palak Sharma Daughter of Jugal Kishor Sharma 6/3. Tanmay Sharma Son of Jugal Kishor Sharma all are resident of Dhaanas, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt Kailash Kanwar Wife of Shri Bhawani Singh Rathore, Resident of Jobner. 2. Bajrang Lal Son of Harinayaran, 3. Narsi Avtar Son of Harinayaran, 4. Prahalad Son of Harinayaran, all are resident of Dhaanas, Post Jobner, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Mishra with Mr. Raghav Mishra, Ms. Kiran Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harsh Pratap Singh [2025:RJ-JP:45327] (2 of 5) [CW-4762/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 11/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, assailing the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Sambhar Lake, Dist. Jaipur, whereby directions have been issued to the petitioners to produce the affidavit and details about the age of the plaintiffs. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned court below has erred in issuing such directions while hearing the arguments upon the application filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). He further submits that for the consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the content of the plaint is required to be examined. He also submits that the learned court below exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order requiring details of the age and the affidavit. Therefore, prays that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that the learned court below has an abridged jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to disclose the details about the age. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Section 30 of the CPC, and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Anr.1. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 1 (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467 [2025:RJ-JP:45327] (3 of 5) [CW-4762/2025] 5. From the record of the case, it is evident that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed and Permanent Injunction was filed in the year 2014, wherein the respondent-defendant No.1-Smt. Kailash Kanwar filed the written-statement on 19.05.2015. Thereafter, the respondent-defendant No.1-Smt. Kailash Kanwar filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on 27.08.2018 and the present petitioners have filed a reply to the said application on 25.02.2019 and during the course of argument on the said application, the learned Trial Court has issued the impugned directions to the petitioners to produce affidavits and details about the age of the petitioner. 6. Before dealing with the instant matter in depth, it is apt to reproduce Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC below: 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; (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 provisions 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 from 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.] 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the learned court below, while considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, has directed the petitioner to produce better particulars, whereas the scope for consideration of application filed under [2025:RJ-JP:45327] (4 of 5) [CW-4762/2025] Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is wholly confined to the averments of the plaint as to whether the suit is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) to (f) of the CPC or not. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Keshav Sood Vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood & Ors.2 while looking to the scope of proceedings under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, has held as under: "5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application." 9. Apart from the above, the provisions for directing parties to file better particulars under Order 6 Rule 5 of the CPC has been omitted vide Amending Act of 1999 (w.e.f. 01.07.2002); even otherwise Section 30 of the CPC has no application at the stage of hearing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC; and further, a look to the judgment so relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in T. Arivandandam (Supra) clearly reflects that the same is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted as the respondent-defendant will always be at liberty to put all questions during the course of cross-examination/ trial. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction and committed jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, thereby directing the petitioner (plaintiff therein) to produce an affidavit and details about the petitioner's age etc. even before deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the 2 2023 (4) RLW 2698 (SC) [2025:RJ-JP:45327] (5 of 5) [CW-4762/2025] CPC that too without there being any formal prayer made by the respondent to that effect; the same is beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the impugned order is per se illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 11. Although, since the learned trial Court is at present still seized with the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, without making any observations/opinions on the merits/demerits of the same, the directions so issued in the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 are hereby set aside. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. 13. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /39