[2025:RJ-JP:25469] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 61/2025 Prem Devi Meena D/o Badri Narain Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 14, Roop Vihar Colony, Natata Road, Nangal Susawtan, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kamar Bai W/o Heera Lal Meena, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Plot No. 56, Gem Enclave Colony, Pradhan Marg, Maliviya Nagar, Jaipur 2. Alok Alias Sonu Khandelwal, Chairman/guardian Bhairav Grah Nirman Sahkari Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 16/07/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 19, Chaksu, Jaipur Metro-I (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.54/2024, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 as well as respondent-defendant No.2 (for short ‘defendant No.2’) in which the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read [2025:RJ-JP:25469] (2 of 4) [CR-61/2025] with Section 151 CPC but the trial Court vide order 29.11.2024 dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further submits that the defendant No.2 had purchased the disputed land by agreement to sell dated 16.06.1998. The said agreement did not give any title to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had purchased the disputed land by registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that the plaintiff had filed the suit in the capacity of member of defendant No.2- Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Defendant No.2 had challenged the proceedings under Section 90A of the Land Revenue Act but JDA Tribunal had dismissed it vide order dated 30.07.2024. The defendant No.2 also filed an appeal against defendant No.1 before the Divisional Commissioner in relation to the proceedings under Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act. So, suit was barred by res judicata and thus was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further submits that after the proceedings under Section 90-A of Land Revenue Act, the said land is owned by local authorities. So, the plaintiff had no right and title over it. The plaintiff had alternate remedy to file the suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed but simplicitor suit for injunction was filed. So, the suit was not maintainable but the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, the petition filed by the defendant No.1 be allowed, the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed for want of cause of action and jurisdiction. [2025:RJ-JP:25469] (3 of 4) [CR-61/2025] Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and Ors., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692. (2) The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekhar and Ors., reported in (2025) SC R94. (3) K Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 238 (4) State of Rajashtan and ors. Vs. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Ltd.,reported in 2012(4) WLN 117 (5) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra)(D) Thr. Lrs and Ors., reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 562. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and submitted that suit was not barred by res judicata because JDA Tribunal had dismissed the proceedings under Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff has possession over the disputed land, so she simply wanted permanent injunction against the defendant. Objections raised by the defendant No.1 would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. While dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1, learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the [2025:RJ-JP:25469] (4 of 4) [CR-61/2025] objections raised by the defendant No.1 would be decided after the evidence of the parties. Suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by res judicata because JDA Tribunal had dismissed the challenge to the proceedings under Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act for want of jurisdiction. So, in my considered opinion, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/103