[2026:RJ-JP:7224] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 336/2025 1. Smt. Rajrani W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh, R/o 34, Alkapuri- A, Murlipura, Jaipur. 2. Dr. Bhupendra Singh Yadav S/o Late Shri Shersingh Yadav, R/o 34, Alkapuri-A, Murlipura, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Ajit Singh Son of Shri Onad Singh, Resident of Soldier Farm, Daulatpura, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. 2. Raghuveer Singh Son of Shri Onad Singh, Resident of Soldier Farm, Daulatpura, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. 3. Vimla Kanwar Wife of Raghuveer Singh, Resident of Soldier Farm, Daulatpura, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. 4. Neelam Kanwar Wife of Ajit Singh, Resident of Soldier Farm, Daulatpura, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. 5. Renu Kanwar Wife of Shri Bhojraj Singh, Resident of Soldier Farm, Daulatpura, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Santosh Kanwar Wife of Anirudh Singh, Resident of Soldier Farm, Daulatpura, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. 7. Smt. Anita W/o Sajjan Singh, R/o Village Sultana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 8. Tehsidar, Khandar. 9. State of Rajasthan, through District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. 10. Sanjay Singh S/o Late Shri Sumer Singh S/o Ramsingh, R/o Village Shimla, Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu. 11. Deepa D/o Late Shri Sumer Singh S/o Ramsingh, R/o Village Shimla, Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu. 12. Renu D/o Late Shri Sumersingh S/o Shri Ramsingh, R/o Village Shimla, Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu. [2026:RJ-JP:7224] (2 of 5) [CR-336/2025] 13. Sawai Singh S/o Late Shri Ramsingh, R/o Village Shimla, Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu. 14. Rai Singh S/o Late Ramsingh, R/o Village Shimla, Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu. 15. Public Works Department, Through Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Anukram Singh Ms. Nisha Rohilla Ms. Deepika For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/02/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, assailing the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Civil Suit No.08/2018 titled 'Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Rajrani & Ors.', whereby the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioners, wherein the plaintiff prayed for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.01.2005 and 22.08.2005 executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and registered sale deed dated 24.05.2006 executed in favour of petitioner/defendant No.2. [2026:RJ-JP:7224] (3 of 5) [CR-336/2025] 3. During pendency of the said civil suit, an application for amendment of plaint has been filed by the plaintiff and the same has been allowed, wherein a new relief for declaring the regularization dated 24.09.1982 in favour of late Shri Ram Singh as null and void has been added. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC dated 22.01.2024 and contended that the relief claimed in prayer Clause in para No. 24 ([k] [k) of the plaint is barred by law, as the plaintiff has taken similar remedies before the learned Revenue Court. Therefore, the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent may be rejected as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, being barred by law. 5. The said application was contested by the plaintiff while stating that the present application has been filed merely to delay the disposal of the suit. It has been further submitted that two previous applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC have been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2024 and 10.03.2025. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. After considering the arguments of both the parties, and the pleas so raised, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application holding thereby that the defendant has previously filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC which have been rejected vide order dated 12.07.2019, 28.02.2023 and 27.04.2023, respectively, which clearly demonstrates that the defendant has repeatedly raised some what similar objections on frivolous grounds. [2026:RJ-JP:7224] (4 of 5) [CR-336/2025] 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the previous two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC relate to different relief sought in the plaint and the present application pertains to relief in para No. 24 ([k] [k), therefore, the earlier rejection has no material bearing in rejection of the present application. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that the learned Court below has passed a reasoned order, after considering the facts and details, more particularly, rejection of similar applications filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC with cost, which has been duly confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the suit has been filed for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.01.2005 and 22.08.2005 executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1, as well as the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2006 executed in favour of petitioner/defendant No.2 and during the pendency of said suit, by way of an amendment application another relief has been added in the prayer clause of the para No.24 ([k] [k) of the plaint for declaring the regularization dated 24.09.1982 to be null and void. 12. From the averments of the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint is barred by law in terms of the provision of Order 7 Rule [2026:RJ-JP:7224] (5 of 5) [CR-336/2025] 11(d) of CPC merely on the ground that additional relief has been added by way of amendment of the plaint. Even otherwise, it is trite law that the plaint cannot be rejected in parts and in previous round of litigations, the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC alleging that the suit is barred by law qua relief claimed in Para No.24 (d] [k] x] ?k) of the plaint have been rejected by the learned Court below and the same have been affirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 13. Therefore, it is evident that the learned Trial Court, after detailed consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, and the relevant law, has passed a well reasoned order which does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the present revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /6