[2025:RJ-JP:24129] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 47/2025 Ajeet Singh Mann Son Of Late Col. Shri Bhani Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Plot No 112 Awho Peeruparam Vihar Ambabadi Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dalip Singh Mann Alias Mann Son Of Late Col. Shri Bhani Singh, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of House No.19, Raghu Complex, Scheme 10, Alwar, Rajasthan. And Plot No. D110, Ambabadi, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Col. R.k.s. Mann S/o Late Col. Shri Bhani Singh, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Eg. 03 Aashiyana Gardens, Bhiwadi, Alwar Bypass (Rajasthan). 3. Smt. Shakun Choudhary D/o Late Col. Shri Bhani Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Lovedale School, E-8, Bharat Nagar, Gulmohar Road, Bhopal. (Madhya Pradesh). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Moomal Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 02 /07/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.3 (for short ‘the defendant No.3’) against the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No.29/2024, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:24129] (2 of 4) [CR-47/2025] Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendant No.3 filed an application before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but trial court vide order dated 13.11.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also submits that it is an admitted position that disputed property was self acquired property of father of the defendants as well as plaintiff. During the lifetime, father Col. Shri Bhani Singh had executed a Will in favour of the defendant No.3 and the same was also got registered. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also submits that father Col. Shri Bhani Singh also executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant No.3 on 11.08.2023. The said gift deed was also registered. So, on account of registered gift deed, defendant No.3 became owner of the disputed property. So, no cause of action was accrued to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had not disclosed the cause of action in the suit. Plaintiff also had not challenged the gift deed executed in favour of the defendant No.3. So, present suit is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also submits that suit filed by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped but trial court had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.3. So, order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai [2025:RJ-JP:24129] (3 of 4) [CR-47/2025] Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. LRs & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.9519/2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11618/2017) decided on 09.07.2020 and (2) Sunita Ranga Vs. Vijayinder Kumar & Ors. in CS (OS) 148/2023 & IA 8501/2024 decided on 05.11.2024. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.3 and submits that trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.3 because while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, only averments of the plaint are to be seen and not the defence of the defendants. Disputed property was self acquired property of the father of the defendants as well as plaintiff. So, plaintiff had 1/4th share in the disputed property. At the time of the execution of the so-called gift deed, their father was suffering from Alzheimer. So, he was not in a position to execute the gift deed. Whether the cause of action accrued to the defendants or not, is a matter of evidence. So, trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.3. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.3 be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.3 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the disputed property was self acquired property of the father of the defendants as well as plaintiff and while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, only averments in the plaint is to be considered and not the defence of the defendants. So, in my considered opinion, trial court has not committed any error in [2025:RJ-JP:24129] (4 of 4) [CR-47/2025] dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.3. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /96