[2025:RJ-JP:28289] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 59/2024 Ramphul Meena S/o Tulsi Ram Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Budhsinghpura (Langad Bhawan Baba Ke Dhani) Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner/Defendant No.1 Versus 1. Chhaju Ram Meena S/o Late Shri Mangla Meena, R/o Vil- lage Nagalpooran Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur Rajasthan 303906 ----Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Mahadev Meena S/o Chandalal Meena, R/o Village Na- galpooran Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur Rajathan At Present In Judicial Custody Central Jail Ghatgate Jaipur. 3. Smt. Jamna Devi W/o Shri Rameshwar Meena, Adopted Daughter Shri Narayan Meena R/o Village Vatika, Dan- gyawali Dhani, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur Rajasthan Original R/o Village Nagalpooran Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur Rajasthan. 4. Shri Tehsildar, Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur 5. Sub-Registrar Chaksu, District Jaipur 6. Sub Registrar Kotkhawada, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pooran Chand Verma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 30/07/2025 The revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defen- dant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.19, Chaksu, Jaipur Metro-I (for short ‘the trial court’) in [2025:RJ-JP:28289] (2 of 4) [CR-59/2024] Civil Suit No.20/2023, whereby the trial court dismissed the appli- cation filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent in- junction and declaration against the defendant as well as respon- dent Nos. 2 to 6 in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. It was mentioned in the plaint that ancestral agricultural land bearing khasra Nos. 357 to 361, 372, 373, 453 to 459, 465 to 471, 527, 527/845, 528, 674, 675, 689, 690 total 28 rakba 6.97 hectare was situated in Village Nangalpuran, Tehsil Chaksu in which the plaintiff’s father was having 1/4th share and adoptive father of respondent No.3 was having 1/4th share. Shri Narain Meena was the uncle of plaintiff. Shri Narain Meena wanted to sell his land for payment of loan and wanted to give rest of the money to his adopted daughter respondent No.3 Jamna Devi. Mahadev Meena with his cousin Ramphool Meena had materialized a deal with Shri Narain Meena for disputed land. Mahadev Meena wrongly prepared the power of attorney in his name and sold the disputed land to the defendant No.1. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 had prepared the forged sale deed dated 30.04.2008 in favour of plaintiff, which is null and void. Learned counsel further submits that plaintiff in his plaint wrongly stated that he had got knowledge about the said sale deed on 06.02.2023 but father of plaintiff- Mangla Meena had lodged FIR on 12.02.2007 in which statement of the plaintiff was recorded by the police and he was also examined in the court on [2025:RJ-JP:28289] (3 of 4) [CR-59/2024] 25.09.2017. So, he had knowledge regarding the said sale deed at time of registration of the FIR but he had filed the suit after a lapse of 15 years, so, it is time barred. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, reported in 2019(2) WLC (SC) Civil 53; (2) Dinesh Parmar and Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Sharma & Anr., re- ported in 2016(4) WLC (Raj.) 206 Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the defen- dant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rightly came to the conclusion that point of limitation would be decided after the evidence of the parties. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be considered not the doc- uments filed by the defendant. So, the present petition being de- void of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned coun- sel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. Contention of the counsel for the defendant is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. In my considered opin- ion, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that while decid- ing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, averments of the [2025:RJ-JP:28289] (4 of 4) [CR-59/2024] plaint are to be considered and question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. So, the present petition filed by the de- fendant 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/85