[2025:RJ-JP:26265] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 89/2024 Shri Virendra Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Shambhu Prakash Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 169, Shuklpuri Ki Gali, Mangla Mata Marg, Brihmpuri, Jaipur (Raj.). 302002. ----Petitioner/Defendant No.1 Versus 1. Smt. Uma Dave Alias Urmila W/o Late Virendra Prakash Deve D/o Late Shri Shambhu Prakash Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Subhash Nagar, Kamalganj, Amnabad, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, 209724, Mob. No. 6386988227, Email Udave4296@gmail.com. --Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Shri Surendra Kuamr Gyani Son Of Late Shri Sambhu Prakash Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Mangla Mata Mandir Parisar, Mangla Mata Marg, Brihmpuri, Jaipur (Raj.) 302002. ----Respondent/Defendant No.2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary Mr. Dev Khangarot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranava Sharma Mr. Satyavrat Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 18/07/2025 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 16.02.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metro-II (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.28/2023, whereby the trial court [2025:RJ-JP:26265] (2 of 3) [CR-89/2024] dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11- (A) and (D) read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent-defendant No.2 (for short ‘the defendant No.2’). Learned counsel further submits that prior to filing the suit, plaintiff had also filed a suit against the defendants and her father- Shambhu Prakash Sharma for partition and permanent injunction of the same property, which was withdrawn by the plaintiff on account of compromise arrived at between the parties on 31.10.2023. No permission for filing the fresh suit was granted to the plaintiff. Since the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was decided, so, she had no right to file the subsequent suit for the same relief. So, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11- (A) and (D) read with Section 151 CPC to the effect that the suit was barred by res judicata and no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the subsequent suit for the same relief but the trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the earlier suit was not decided on merits, so, principle of res judicata is not applicable. Learned counsel also submitted that objections raised by the defendant would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the [2025:RJ-JP:26265] (3 of 3) [CR-89/2024] application filed by the defendant. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgment:- (1) ‘Kamala and Ors. Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Ors.’, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661 I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. While dismissing the application filed by the defendant, the trial Court rightly observed that the earlier suit was not decided on merit. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11- (A) and (D) read with Section 151 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered. Defendant is free to raise the objections in the written statement, which would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the present petition 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/102