[2026:RJ-JP:162] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14062/2024 1. Badrilal Sharma S/o. Shri Jamunashankar Ji Sharma, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of 167, Mahaveer Nagar- II, Kota. 2. Girja Shankar Sharma S/o. Shri Badrilal Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 167, Mahaveer Nagar-II, Kota. 3. Gajendra Sharma S/o. S/o. Shri Badrilal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 167, Mahaveer Nagar-II, Kota. 4. Ravi Kant Sharma S/o. Late Shri Prabhakar Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of House No.3-C-35, Dadabari Extension, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Govindlal S/o. Shri Bheru, Village Padliya, Tehsil Mangrole, District Baran (Raj.) 2. Hdfc Bank, Branch Office Baran Through Branch Manager. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailash Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Singh Mr. Naman Yadav Ms. Somitra Chaturvedi Mr. Narsi Prasad Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 06/01/2026 1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kota, the Court has not only rejected the suit [2026:RJ-JP:162] (2 of 3) [CW-14062/2024] by exercising power under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but has also made observations with regard to the agreement to sell. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 23.08.2024, wherein the suit was rejected, he had already filed an appeal before this Court and the appeal is pending for adjudication. However, herein he is only aggrieved by the observations which have been made by the learned Trial Court regarding the agreement to sell. 4. He contends that the observations made by learned Trial Court were beyond its jurisdiction, once the learned Trial Court has found itself having no jurisdiction to decide the suit, it ought not to have proceeded further to make any observations thereafter with regard to the agreement to sell. 5. Therefore, he prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the observations made with regard to the agreement to sell may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the agreement to sell is forged and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly observed it to be a forged document and he supports the order dated 23.08.2024. However, he could not refute position of law that once the Court finds itself having no jurisdiction, the observations cannot be made. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. This Court finds that an appeal has already been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 23.08.2024, whereby his suit was rejected while exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that [2026:RJ-JP:162] (3 of 3) [CW-14062/2024] while exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC i.e. rejection of plaint, there was no jurisdiction with the learned Trial Court to have made further any observation on the agreement to sell. 9. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the observations made in Para Nos. 10, 11, partially in Para No. 12 and Para No.13 with regard to the agreement to sell by learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 23.03.2024. 10. With the above observations, the present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of. 11. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/35