[2026:RJ-JP:10520] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 27/2026 Smt. Nisha Mehar D/o Narsingh Lal Mehra, Aged About 47 Years, R/o House No 1-T-8 Talwandi Kota Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Nandlal Alias Nand Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Raipura Kota Rajasthan, At Present R/o Near Nagar Nigam Colony, Chawani, Ramchandrapura, Kota Rajasthan. 2. Ishwarlal Saini S/o Ghasilal Saini, R/o A-86, Opposite Galav Community Building, R.k. Puram Sector-A, Kota Rajasthan. 3. Shobharam S/o Raghuvar Dayal, R/o Indragandhi Nagar Kota Rajasthan. 4. Uday Lal S/o Shri Bishna, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota Rajasthan. 5. Smt. Sosar D/o Bishna, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura District Kota Rajasthan. 6. Mannu Bai D/o Bishna, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota Rajasthan. 7. Rampyari D/o Bishna, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Rajnagarh, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota Rajasthan. 8. Sub Registrar, Registrar Office First, Kota District Kota Rajasthan. 9. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota Rajasthan. 10. Kota Development Authority, District Kota Through Its Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma (for respondent No.1) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/03/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kota North in Civil Suit No. (CIS [2026:RJ-JP:10520] (2 of 4) [CR-27/2026] No.) 123/2025 titled as 'Nandlal @ Nand Singh vs. Nisha Mehar', whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. He further submits that the civil suit was filed on 20.02.2025 by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 seeking declaration of the registered sale deeds dated 01.05.1991 and 25.04.2001 to be null and void. It is evidently clear that the present suit has been filed after an inordinate delay, thus, the present suit is hopelessly barred by time. He also submits that the suit land is an agricultural land belongs to a member of schedule caste, hence, the suit is hit by the provisions of Sections 42B, 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therefore, the present suit is not triable by a Civil Court and is barred by law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the said submissions and submits that the predecessor-in-title of the defendant/respondent Nos.3 to 7 namely late Bishna solely sold the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent No.1- Nandlal vide registered sale deed dated 01.06.1964 and thereafter, no right or title of late Bishna or his LRs remained in the suit property, yet the subsequent sale deeds dated 01.05.1991 as well as 25.04.2001 were executed by the defendant/respondent Nos.3 to 7 without having any valid title, therefore, the present suit was filed seeking declaration of aforesaid sale deeds dated 01.05.1991 and 25.04.2001 to be null and void. He further submits that the points so raised by the petitioner qua Sections 42B, 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 cannot be made a ground for [2026:RJ-JP:10520] (3 of 4) [CR-27/2026] rejection of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. He therefore, submits that the learned Court below after considering the objections under relevant law, passed the impugned order and there is no legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From bare perusal of the record it is revealed that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 while stating that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 from late Bishna S/o late Rambaksh vide registered sale deed dated 01.06.1964 (registered on 09.06.1964). It was further stated in the plaint that no right, title or interest remained either with late Bishna or with his LRs in the suit land, therefore, the execution of the sale deed dated 01.05.1991 by the LRs of Bishna in favour of defendant/respondent No.3 and thereafter, the execution of the subsequent sale deed dated 25.04.2001 by defendant/respondent No.3- Shobha Rani in favour of the present petitioner is per se illegal and void ab initio. 6. So far as the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua the suit being barred by Sections 42B, 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is concerned, looking to the averments of the plaint, the same are not attracted. 7. It is trite law that, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments of the plaint are required to be examined, and from a bare perusal of the plaint, it is abundantly clear that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action [2026:RJ-JP:10520] (4 of 4) [CR-27/2026] and from the statements made therein, the present suit cannot be termed to be filed without disclosing a valid cause of action or barred by law. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the present case does not fall within the four corners of the grounds enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 8. Apart from the above, a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, it is evident that the learned Court below has considered all the objections of the petitioner indicated and after considering the said objections and relevant law, has rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The learned Court below has further observed that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is free to raise all the points encapsulated in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in the written statement, and the same will be considered during the course of trial of the suit after framing of the issues and pleadings of the evidence. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 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. 10. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-12