[2025:RJ-JP:30820] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 45/2023 Harisingh Lambora S/o Sh. Laxminarain Lambora, Aged About 62 Years, R/o V.p.o. Budhwal Teh. Narnaul Distt. Mahindergarh, (Haryana ) At Present 80, Brijraj Enclave, Panchyawala, Sirsi Road Jaipur. ----Petitioner/Defendant No.1 Versus 1. Sh. Rameshwar Prashad S/o Sh. Chhoturam, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 185A Dhadhichi Nagar, Murlipura, Sikar Raod, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Govind Singh S/o Sh. Daulat Singh, Vill. Kharrampura, Teh. Nadbai, Bharatpur, Raj At Present 80, Brijraj Enclave, Panchyawal, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. ----Proforma Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Singh Lombara (present in person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 11/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.4, Jaipur Metro-II (for short ‘the trial court’) in case No.38/2022, whereby the trial court dismissed the review application filed by the defendant for reviewing the order dated 28.02.2022 passed on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Defendant is present in person before this Court. He submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit [2025:RJ-JP:30820] (2 of 3) [CR-45/2023] for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendant filed an application under Section 151 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC read with Section 33 and 35 of the Stampt Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act before the trial Court but the trial Court vide order dated 28.02.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Defendant further submits that he filed a review application before the trial Court but the trial Court vide order dated 25.01.2023 dismissed the review application filed by him. Defendant further submits that the trial Court while deciding the application under Section 151 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC read with Section 33 and 35 of the Stampt Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act mentioned that deficiency of the stamp fees is a curable defect and unregistered agreement is admissible in the evidence for collateral purpose. Defendant further submits that the trial Court wrongly dismissed the review application filed by the defendant. So, the orders dated 25.01.2023 and 28.02.2022 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the defendant and submits that scope of review is very limited and there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the trial Court. So, the petition filed by the defendant be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the defendant and counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the order dated 28.02.2022 reveals that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. So, in my considered opinion and in view of the fact that the scope of review is very [2025:RJ-JP:30820] (3 of 3) [CR-45/2023] limited, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the review application filed by the defendant. So, the revision petition filed by the defendant 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 Ritu/55