[2026:RJ-JP:29061] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 234/2024 CNR: RJHC020613512024 | URN: CR / 376U / 2024 Gaurishankar Son Of Late Shri Mangal Ji, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 54, Lalpura Colony, Vanasthali Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Anjali Aged 32 Years Daughter Of Late Shri Deepchand 2. Smt. Harshita Aged 30 Years Daughter Of Late Shri Deepchand Both Resident Of Plot No. 54, Lalpura Colony, Vanasthali Marg, Station Road, Jaipur At Present Resident Of Plot No. A-71, Kumawat Colony, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara Jaipur Raj. 3. Har Aam, And Khaas ----Non-Applicants/Respondents 4. Kumari Kavita Daughter Of Shri Gaurishankar, Aged 28 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 54, Lalpura Colony, Vanasthali Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Applicant/Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/07/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Civil Misc. Application No.157/2023, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:29061] (2 of 4) [CR-234/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revocation petition preferred by the respondents is ex facie barred by limitation. He further submits that revocation of the administration order dated 24.01.2017 and the letter of administration dated 25.04.2017 proceedings have been initiated after an unexplained and inordinate delay. He further submits that in view of the pendency of Civil Suit No. 694/2014 for partition and the appeals arising therefrom between the same parties, the present revocation petition is not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the revocation petition may kindly be dismissed with costs. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the revocation application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and the impugned order. 4. It would be apt to reproduce Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under :- "Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. [2026:RJ-JP:29061] (3 of 4) [CR-234/2024] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] " 5. On bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent has filed the revocation application filed under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, with regard to setting aside of the Administration Order dated 24.01.2017 and Letter of Administration dated 25.04.2017; and in the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, the plea raised that the revocation application is time barred and is not maintainable in view of Partition Suit No.694/2014 and the appeal arising therefrom. 6. Further, the objection raised by the petitioner in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, constitutes a mixed question of fact and law. Such an assertion requires a detailed examination of evidence, which is strictly outside the scope of an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 7. Apart from that, the learned Trial Court noted that the pleas raised under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC application involved mixed questions of fact and law, which could only be adjudicated after framing of issues and leading of evidence. Since such an evidentiary inquiry falls outside the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11,CPC, the learned Court below correctly rejected the application. 8. In the upshot of the foregoing discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the [2026:RJ-JP:29061] (4 of 4) [CR-234/2024] objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not fall within the contours of Order 7 Rule 11(a) or (d) of the CPC. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 9. The reasoning recorded by the learned Court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity that would warrant interference by this Court under Section 115 of the CPC. 10. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Stay Application No. 2820/2024 and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 2/VINAY