[2026:RJ-JP:10186] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2026 Raju Bairwa S/o Shri Narayan Bairwa, Resident Of Gram Panwaliya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Baid Finserv Limited, (Purv Me Baid Lising And Finance Company Limited) Office Baid House, Second Manjil, 1, Tara Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Through Adhikrit Pratinidhi Shri Mahendra Kumar Baid. 2. Daulatram Bairwa S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Bairwa, R/o 40, Ramdev Ka Mandir, Nevta, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur-303905. 3. Up Panjiyak Mohadaya, Up Panjiyak Office Bagru District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Agrawal, Mr. Raj Kumar Tongawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bansiwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 10/03/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the impugned order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan - II, Jaipur, in the Civil Suit No.286/2025 (3270/25) titled as 'Baid Finserv Limited Vs. Daulatram Bairwa & Ors.', whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:10186] (2 of 6) [CR-42/2026] 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 01.03.2023 executed by the defendant/respondent- Daulatram Bairwa in favour of the defendant/petitioner. It was stated in the plaint that the defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa mortgaged the suit land to secure a loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the plaintiff/respondent - Company. It was further stated that, during subsistence of the mortgage deed, the defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa ailenated the suit property to the defendant/petitioner vide sale deed dated 01.03.2023, which is in violation law. Therefore, prayed for declaration and cancellation of the said sale deed. 3. After service, the defendant/petitioner appeared in the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, stating that the present suit is barred by law under Sections 42-B and 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was further stated that since the suit land is an agricultural land, the suit for cancellation of the sale deed of agricultural land is not maintainable in the civil court in terms of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 4. The plaintiff/respondents filed reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, denying the averments pleaded in the said application and thus, prayed for rejection of the application. 5. After considering the averments of the plaint, pleas raised in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and reply thereto, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 16.10.2025, rejected the said application. [2026:RJ-JP:10186] (3 of 6) [CR-42/2026] 6. Being aggrieved of which, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He further submits that the learned Court below overlooked the fact that the suit is barred by law in terms of Section 42-B and 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He therefore prays that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 may be quashed and set aside; the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be allowed; and the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent may be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the suit land was initially mortgaged by defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa in the year 2017. During the subsistence of that mortgage, defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa sold the suit property to the present petitioner vide sale deed dated 01.03.2023. Since the sale deed was executed in clear violation of the mortgage deed, the suit for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed. He further submitted that the learned Court below, after a detailed examination of facts and law, dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on [2026:RJ-JP:10186] (4 of 6) [CR-42/2026] record. 10. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 01.03.2023 (registered on 23.03.2023) was filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent stated that the suit property was owned by defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa, who had mortgaged it to secure a loan of Rs. 20 lakhs from the plaintiff/respondent. The loan was disbursed, and the property was accordingly mortgaged with the plaintiff/respondent. From the averments in the plaint, it is clearly reflected that when the loan amount was not repaid, the plaintiff/respondent initiated recovery proceedings, and an award dated 24.06.2022 was passed against defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa. In the plaint, it was further averred that during the subsistence of the mortgage deed, Daulatram Bairwa alienated the suit property to the present petitioner vide sale deed dated 01.03.2023 (registered on 23.03.2023). Since the sale deed was executed in violation of law, the plaintiff/respondent sought a declaration and cancellation of the registered sale deed. 11. From a bare perusal of the record, it is also evident that the present revision has been filed by the subsequent purchaser of the suit property. The petitioner (subsequent purchaser) raised pleas that the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed is barred by the provisions of Sections 42-B and 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which read as under: "42-B. Declaration as valid of sale, gift and bequest- Where any sale, gift of holding before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 Act No.22 of 1992 was void on account of contravention of any of the [2026:RJ-JP:10186] (5 of 6) [CR-42/2026] provisions of clause (a) of Section 42, as it stood before the said amendment Act of 1992, such sale, gift or bequest may be declared to be valid by the Collector or any officer or authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf on an application made to him or it within such time and in such manner and on payment of such fee and penalty as may be prescribed: 43. Mortgage- (1) A Khatedar tenant, or with the general or special permission of the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf, a Gair Khatedar tenant, may hypothecate or mortgage his interest in the whole or part of his holding for the purpose of obtaining loan from the State Government or Land Development Bank as defined in the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act 13 of 1965) or a Co-operative Society registered or deemed to be registered as such under the said Act or any Scheduled Bank or any other institution notified by the State Government in that behalf. (2) A Khatedar tenant may transfer his interest in the whole or part of his holding in the form of usufructuary mortgage to any person but such mortgage must provide that the mortgage amount shall be deemed to be paid off by the usufruct of the property within a specified time not exceeding five years, and in the absence of such period being specified such mortgage shall be deemed to be for five years" 12. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that they apply to only three modes of transfer i.e. sale, gift and bequest made at the behest of the Khatedar tenant, whereas in the present case, the suit land was not transferred by the defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa but was kept as a mortgage in the loan. Hence, the aforesaid provisions have no application to the facts of the case, which concern the cancellation of a sale deed executed in violation of a mortgage deed. 13. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not fall within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, the [2026:RJ-JP:10186] (6 of 6) [CR-42/2026] arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 14. Apart from the above, a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Court below reveals that it has considered the facts in detail, examined the relevant law, and held that the suit is neither barred by Sections 42-B and 43 nor by Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The reasoning given by the learned Court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Section 115 of CPC. 15. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/8