[2025:RJ-JP:15859] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 63/2019 Bank Of Baroda, Branch G-4/7, Krishna Kripa-5, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Through Senior Branch Manager, Attorney Holder And Principal Officer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Nirmala Devi Parwal W/o Sh. V.k. Parwal, R/o House No. A-54-A, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Smt. Sunita Parwal W/o Sh. K.k. Parwal, R/o House No. A-28, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Sh. Puneet Parwal S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Parwal, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o House No. A-28, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rekha Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amol Vyas HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 09/04/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in civil suit No. 17/2014 whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for dismissing the counter-claim by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’). Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in which the defendants filed the counter-claim and sought rent of the disputed premises of Rs. 88,03,92,935/- but had not paid the court fees accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:15859] (2 of 2) [CR-63/2019] Learned counsel further submits that the defendants sought rent but had not filed the petition before the Rent Control Tribunal, so the counter-claim filed by the defendants was without jurisdiction but the trial Court vide order dated 19.12.2018 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff and also submitted that the plaintiff had filed an application before the trial Court under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing the issues regarding court fees of the counter-claim and jurisdiction to present the counter-claim regarding the rent. So, present revision petition is not maintainable because trial Court would frame the issue accordingly, if it deems fit. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The trial Court while dismissing the application clearly mentioned that the present counter-claim cannot be dismissed by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Plaintiff has also filed an application before the trial Court for framing the issues regarding court fees and maintainability of the counter-claim. So, the present civil revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGesssH DHADDHA),J Ritu/97