[2026:RJ-JP:31246] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 270/2026 CNR: RJHC020529422026 | URN: CR / 445U / 2026 Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Narayan Dev Sharma, R/o Flat No. 408, G-02, Gensis Apartment, Kanak Vrindavan CC Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1 Banwari Lal S/o Shri Nanuram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 72, Ganga Vihar Colony, Near Sawaimadhopur Railway Line, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Mob.-9928517847. 2 Prem Chand Yadav S/o Shri Lallu Ram Yadav, R/o 334, Bhura Patel Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3 Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4 Tehsildar, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 10/08/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarh, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No.14/2026 (CIS No.14/2026) titled 'Banwari Lal Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma & Ors.', whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed. 2. The facts germane to the present civil revision petition, in brief, are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, seeking a decree for the specific performance of a contract and the cancellation of a subsequent registered sale deed. [2026:RJ-JP:31246] (2 of 6) [CR-270/2026] 2.1. In the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the petitioner vide an agreement to sell dated 04.11.2021, upon the payment of the entire sale consideration. It was further pleaded that, subsequently, the petitioner executed a registered sale deed dated 17.02.2023 in favour of defendant No. 2 without the plaintiff's knowledge, a fact which allegedly came to his knowledge for the first time on 14.09.2025. It was prayed inter alia that a decree of specific performance maybe passed against the petitioner. 3. Upon service in the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking rejection of the plaint. The petitioner primarily contended that the document dated 04.11.2021 was, in essence, a partnership agreement, more specifically a 'Partnership at Will' under Section 7 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It was also contented that enforcing such an agreement would require continuous supervision by the Court over an indefinite period, and therefore, the suit for specific performance was statutorily barred in view of Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was therefore prayed that the plaint filed by the plaintiff be rejected. 4. The plaintiff filed a reply to the said application, vehemently opposing the same and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. It was also submitted therein that the document dated 04.11.2021 is not a partnership deed, but rather an agreement to sell, as it explicitly employs the terms "buyer" and "seller" to [2026:RJ-JP:31246] (3 of 6) [CR-270/2026] describe the respective parties. It was therefore prayed that the application filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. After considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 and held that the document dated 04.11.2021 explicitly refers to the parties as "buyer" and "seller," and the financial conduct of the parties shows prima facie that the said document was an agreement to sell. It was further held that the question of whether a valid cause of action exists, and whether the suit is barred by limitation, are mixed questions of law and fact which can only be adjudicated after leading evidence. Since the plaint explicitly states that the cause of action arose on 14.09.2025 and the suit was instituted on 07.02.2026, the suit prima facie appears to have been filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaint filed by the plaintiff/respondent does not disclose cause of action and that the suit for specific performance has been filed for enforcing an agreement that is in actuality a partnership agreement. He further submits that the present suit is barred by law as enforcing specific performance of the agreement in question would require continuous supervision by the Court, which is barred by Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He therefore contends that the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms [2026:RJ-JP:31246] (4 of 6) [CR-270/2026] of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d); and prays that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 8. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 9. To appreciate the issue at hand, it would be apt to reproduce Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC 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. [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.] " 10. It is revealed from the record that the suit is laid for the specific performance of the agreement dated 04.11.2021, and in the same suit, a relief has been sought for the cancellation of subsequent sale deeds. The cause of action for the suit has been distinctly narrated in paragraphs No. 12 and 14 of the plaint, wherein it has been stated that the cause of action arose on 14.09.2025, i.e., when the plaintiff came to know that the [2026:RJ-JP:31246] (5 of 6) [CR-270/2026] petitioner had executed a sale deed dated 17.02.2023 in favour of defendant No. 2 despite the subsisting agreement dated 04.11.2021. Thus, from a bare reading of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has laid out a cause of action, and it cannot be said that the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC. 11. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the agreement being a partnership agreement and not an agreement to sell, as well as the argument vis-à-vis the specific performance of the agreement being barred by Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, are concerned, it is well established that while adjudicating an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, a Court cannot conduct a 'mini-trial'. The power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power which is not to be exercised indiscriminately; its application is to be confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not fall within the contours of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, as the same require the examination of evidence led by the parties during the course of the trial. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner lack merit and cannot be accepted at this threshold stage. 12. That apart, upon a bare perusal of the impugned order and the reasons recorded therein, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to warrant [2026:RJ-JP:31246] (6 of 6) [CR-270/2026] any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115 of the CPC. 13. Accordingly, the present revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. As a necessary corollary, all other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Deepa-6