[2026:RJ-JP:6383] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 73/2026 Gayatri Bhagat Wife of Narendra Kumar Lodhi, aged about 55 Years, R/o Gali No. 9 Shivaji Colony Kasba Niwai Tehsil Niwai District-Tonk Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Gopal Lal Rao S/o Ramchandra Rao, aged about 49 Years, R/o Kacchi Basti, Five Kua, Dhani Jugalpura Tehsil Niwai District Tonk Rajasthan. 2. Tanuj Salodia W/o Shri Kishore Salodia, aged about 71 Years, R/o Gali No. 12 Shivaji Kasba Niawai Tehsil Niwai District Tonk Rajasthan. 3. Dhulichand S/o Babulal Bairwa, aged about 33 Years, R/o M.G. 86 Maharishi Gautam Nagar Sanganer Jaipur Rajasthan. 4. Bhagwan Sahay Bairwa S/o Babulal, aged about 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 21-H, Indira Gandhi Nagar Jagatpura Rajasthan. 5. Tehsildar, Niwai District Tonk Rajasthan. 6. Sub Registrar, Office Niwai District Tonk Rajasthan. 7. Nagar Palika Niwai, District Tonk Through Its Executive Officer Nagar Palika Niwai District Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Gotecha Mr. Chitranshu Mishra For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 11/02/2026 1. While impugning the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk, in Civil Suit No.36/2025 titled as 'Gopal Lal vs. Tanuj Salodia & Ors.' whereby the petitioner's application filed [2026:RJ-JP:6383] (2 of 4) [CR-73/2026] under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred in not rejecting the suit in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, as the suit is barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. He further submits that the present suit is not within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, and the suit has been filed with deficient court fees. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. It would be apt to reproduce Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as follows:- 11. 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 returned 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.] 5. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below does not have the [2026:RJ-JP:6383] (3 of 4) [CR-73/2026] pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit has been filed with deficient court fees. The said ground is not attracted in view of the explicitly clear language and limited scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Even otherwise, the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the suit cannot be said to be undervalued in view of the nature of relief sought in the plaint. 6. Further, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant qua the plaint being barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, falls flat in view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a limitation period of three (3) years to file a suit for specific performance of a contract from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice of the refusal of specific performance. Since the defendant no.1 (respondent no.2 herein) has executed the subsequent sale deed on 15.12.2024 in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 4 (petitioner and respondent no. 3 & 4, respectively) therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. 7. Even otherwise, the question of a suit being barred by limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which are to be adjudicated by the court during the course of the trial. This view is in consonance with the legal principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chhotanben and Ors. Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Ors.1 wherein it was held as under: 12. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application Under Order VII Rule 11(d), is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the Defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application Under Order VII Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane........ 1 (2018) 6 SCC 422 [2026:RJ-JP:6383] (4 of 4) [CR-73/2026] ........According to the Appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the Trial Court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent No. 1 (Defendant No. 5) for rejection of the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d). That view commends to us. 16.......We affirm the view taken by the Trial Court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power Under Order VII Rule 11(d)." (Emphasis Supplied) 8. Apart from it, from perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Court below has turned down the pleas raised by the petitioner while observing that all the pleas raised in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC do not fall within the purview of the Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, and the same will be considered after filing of the written statement by the petitioner and pleadings of the parties. 9. Even otherwise, the petitioner is always at liberty to make these submissions in the written statement, which will be duly considered by the learned Trial Court during the course of the trial. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 11. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /17