[2025:RJ-JP:27307] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 59/2020 Mukesh Kumar Meena Alias Mitthan Lal Meena S/o Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kherali Pichnot, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Gokalram Meena S/o Shri Bhambhuram Meena, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Village Kherali Pichnot, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 23/07/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short the defendant) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Malakheda, Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.34/149/2017, titled as “Gokalram Meena Vs. Mukesh Kumar Meena” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of adoption deed dated 31.05.2006 in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the suit was filed by the plaintiff after a lapse of 11 years. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation but the trial court vide order [2025:RJ-JP:27307] (2 of 3) [CR-59/2020] dated 18.01.2020 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant was adopted by the plaintiff on 31.05.2002. The adoption deed executed on 31.05.2006 and registered on 01.06.2006 but the plaintiff wrongly averred in the plaint that he came to know about the said adoption deed upon receiving a notice in the year 2016. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the adoption deed executed on 31.05.2006 and registered on 01.06.2006 on which photo of the plaintiff as well as his wife were affixed and it also bore their signatures. So, the plaintiff had knowledge about the said adoption deed since the year 2006. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by the limitation but the trial court vide order dated 18.01.2020 has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the petition filed by he defendant be allowed, the order dated 18.01.2020 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) Kanhaiyalal & Ors. Vs. Aameen Khan & Ors. reported in 2024: RJ-JP:23570: (2) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 346: (3) Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. Reported in (2020) SCC 557: [2025:RJ-JP:27307] (3 of 3) [CR-59/2020] (4) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) reported in 2019 DNJ (SC) 337: (5) Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. Nathuram Gurjar & Ors. Reported in 2024 NCRJ-JP 24919: Despite service of notice, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order dated 18.01.2020. It is an admitted position that the adoption deed executed on 31.05.2006 and registered on 01.06.2006 on which photo of the plaintiff as well as his wife were affixed and it also bore their signatures, so it can not be said that the plaintiff came to know about the adoption deed in the year 2016. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit and dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 18.01.2020 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limitation. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/73