[2025:RJ-JP:20824] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 33/2019 Salim Mohammad S/o Shri Chand Mohammad, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Kumharon Ki Nadi Opposite Bekri Chokri Ramchandra Ji Jaipur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kaluram Sharma S/o Late Shri Gopiram Sharma, R/o Plot No. A-37 Sitarampuri Amer Road Jaipur (Raj) 2. Madholal Sain S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Sain, R/o Panchwati Colony Jaisinghpura Khor Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Daga, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 26 /05/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2 (for short ‘the defendant No.2’) against the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.16/2017, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant No.2 has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction in which defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but trial court vide [2025:RJ-JP:20824] (2 of 3) [CR-33/2019] order dated 13.12.2018 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 also submits that the plaintiff had knowledge of so-called agreement executed between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 on 13.02.2006. When the plaintiff was impleaded as a party at that time, the plaintiff had not filed the counter claim. So, limitation with regard to agreement dated 10.12.2003 shall commence from the date when the plaintiff was impleaded as a party but plaintiff had filed the suit in the year 2017 i.e. after a lapse of 14 years. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 also submits that the suit between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was decreed after compromise. The said compromise cannot be challenged by way of civil suit but trial court had ignored those facts while dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on account of non accrual of cause of action. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.2 and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had knowledge regarding the suit filed by defendant No.2 against the defendant No.1 when the plaintiff was impleaded as a party. At that time, the plaintiff had not raised the objections regarding execution of the agreement dated 10.12.2003 between him and defendant No.1. The suit filed by the defendant No.2 against the defendant No.1 [2025:RJ-JP:20824] (3 of 3) [CR-33/2019] was decreed on account of compromise between the parties in lok adalat. By way of the present suit, plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 10.12.2003. Although, he had knowledge regarding the suit pending between the defendant No.2 and defendant No.1, but the suit was filed by him after a lapse of 14 years and by way of the present suit, he wanted to set aside the decree granted by lok adalat. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had no jurisdiction to set aside the compromise decree of the lok adalat. The suit filed by the plaintiff is also barred by limitation. So, order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant No.2 is allowed. The order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the trial court is set aside. Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as barred by law. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /64