HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 83/2026 1. Akhil Bharatvarshiy Shri Khandal Vipra Mahasabha, Registered Office Bharadwaj Aashram Pushkar District Ajmer Through Its President Mohanlal Sharma (Bochiwal). 2. Mohanlal Sharma (Bochiwal) S/o Daniram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Office Of Akhil Bharatvarshiy Shri Khandal Vipra Mahasabha Registered Office Bharadwaj Aashram Pushkar District Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Nandkishore Sharma S/o Laduram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 54/78, Panchwati Marg, Heera Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 2. Shri Madanlal Sharma S/o Badrinarayan Sharma, Aged About 76 Years, R/o 321A, 10B Scheme, Bhopalpura Bypass Road, Jaipur. 3. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Omprakash, Aged About 43 Years, R/o B-1 Vivekanand Colony, Nya Kheda, Ambabadi, Jaipur. 4. Shri Bhawani Shankar Sharma S/o Omprakash, Aged About 40 Years, R/o D-217, Suncity, Sikar Road, Harmada, Jaipur. 5. Shri Kailash Khandelwal S/o Shri Nandlal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Fatahnagar, Udaipur. 6. Shri Jamnalal Sharma S/o Lachhiram, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Khartna, Udaipur Sanwali. 7. Shri Lekhraj Sharma S/o Satyanarayan Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ratanpura, Fuliyakalan, Bhilwada. 8. Shri Bhawani Shankar Sharma S/o Gokul Lal Sharma, Aged About 79 Years, R/o 492-11, Azad Nagar, Bhilwada. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri with Ms. Bismaad Kaur and Ms. Harsha Dev For Respondent(s) : (2 of 5) [CR-83/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 10/03/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants/petitioners assailing the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pushkar, District Ajmer, in Civil Suit No.38/2025 titled as 'Nand Kishore Sharma & ors. vs. Akhil Bharatvarshiy & Ors.' whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant/petitioner has been rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration challenging the actions of defendant/petitioners no.1 and 2, and sought the following reliefs:- " अतः माननीय न्यायालय से निनवेदन है नि वादीगण े पक्ष में एवं प्रनितवादीगण े निवरूद्ध निनम्न रूपेण आज्ञप्ति! पारि#त ी जाये:- 1. यह नि प्रनितवादी संख्या 2 (दो) द्वा#ा प्रनितवादी संख्या 1 (ए) संस्था े अध्यक्ष ी हैनिसयत से निदनां 07.10.2024 ( सात अक्टू ब# दो हजा# चौबीस) ो जरि#ये मां 214/24 ( दो सौ चौदह/चौबीस) ाया/लय आदेश ो शून्य एवं अवैध घोनि3त निया जाये तथा निदनां 07.10.2024 ( सात अक्टू ब# दो हजा# चौबीस) े पश्चात प्रनितवादी संख्या 2 (दो) द्वा#ा प्रनितवादी संख्या 1 (ए) संस्था े अध्यक्ष ी हैनिसयत से निवधान े निनयमों े निवपरि#त जा# गनि6त ाय/ा#ीणी निदनां 09.10.2024 ( नौ अक्टू ब# दो हजा# चौबीस) में मनोनीत निये गये ाय/ा#ीणी सदस्यों े साथ निमलाभगनित #ते हुये निये गये संस्था से संबंनिधत सभी ाय: एवं निनण/यों ो शून्य एवं अवैध घोनि3त निया जाये साथ ही प्रनितवादी संख्या 2 (दो) द्वा#ा स्वयं तथा प्रनितवादी संख्या 1 (ए) े संस्था े अध्यक्ष ी हैनिसयत से वाद पत्र ी च#ण संख्या 7 (सात) में वनिण/तानुसा# संस्था े सदस्यों से संस्था े निवधान े निनयमो े निवपरि#त जा# जो सदस्यता #ानिश प्रा! #ने े मनमाने े आदेश जा#ी निये गये है उन्हे शून्य एवं अवैध घोनि3त निया जावे। 2. यह नि इस आशय ी आदेशात्म निन3ेधाज्ञा जा#ी ी जाये नि प्रनितवादी संख्या 2 (दो) स्वयं ो तथा प्रनितवादी संख्या 1 (ए) संस्था े अध्यक्ष ी हैनिसयत से संस्था े चुनाव निवधान े निनयमानुसा# सम्पन्न #वाये तथा निदनां 20.10.2025 (बीस अक्टू ब# दो हजा# पच्चीस) ो उसा तीन व3/ ा ाय/ाल पू#ा होने प# वह संस्था े अध्यक्ष ी हैनिसयत से ोई ाय/ नहीं #ें। 3. यह नि स्थायी निन3ेधाज्ञा जा#ी # प्रनितवादी संख्या 2 (दो) स्वयं तथा प्रनितवादी संख्या 1 (ए) संस्था े अध्यक्ष ी हैनिसयत से निदनां 26.09. 2025 (छब्बीस निसतम्ब# दो हजा# पच्चीस) ो जा#ी निये गये पत्र ी निन#न्त#ता में निदनां 26.10.2025 ( छब्बीस अक्टू ब# दो हजा# पच्चीस) ो वाद पत्र ी च#ण संख्या 9 (नौ) व 10 (दस) में वनिण/तानुसा# महासभा ी बै6 आहूत नहीं #े तथा संस्था े निसी भी सदस्य े निनष्कासन े संबंध में ोई ाय/वाही नही #े साथ ही यनिद प्रनितवादी संख्या 2 (दो) स्वयं तथा प्रनितवादी संख्या 1 (ए) सस्था े अध्यक्ष ी हैनिसयत से निदनां 20.10.2025 ( छब्बीस अक्टू ब# दो हजा# पच्चीस) े पश्चात संस्था े निवधान े निनयमों े अनुसा# चुनाव #वाने में असफल #हे तो माननीय न्यायालय द्वा#ा संस्था में चुनाव सम्पन्न होने त तथा महासभा ा अध्यक्ष निनवा/निचत होने (3 of 5) [CR-83/2026] त संस्था में अस्थायी रूप से प्रशास ी निनयुप्तिN ी जाये निजससे ी संस्था निवधान े निनयमों े तहत संचानिलत हो से । 4. वाद व्यय वादीगण ो निदलवाया जावे। 5. अन्य अनुतो3 जो माननीय न्यायालय उनिचत समझे वादीगण ो निदलवाया जावे।" 3. After service, the defendant/petitioners appeared in the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, primarily raising the ground that the present suit has been filed in violation of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2006 i.e. Constitution of Vipra Mahasabha and all subordinate bodies as well as Section 92 and Order 31 of the CPC. It was further submitted that the plaintiff/respondents had directly approached the learned Trial Court without availing the remedies available under the provisions of the Rules of 2006. Therefore, the present suit is not maintainable and prayed for rejection of the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 4. The plaintiff/respondents filed a reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, denying the averments made in the said application and thus, prayed for rejection of the same. 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 17.11.2025 rejected the said application on the ground that all the pleas raised by the defendant/appellant in the application are mixed questions of fact and law and the same would be considered during the course of trial after the evidence led by the parties. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2025, the defendant/petitioner filed the present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner and failed to consider the fact that the present suit has been filed in (4 of 5) [CR-83/2026] violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2006 as well as Section 92 and Order 31 of CPC, and the same is barred by law. He therefore prays that the present revision petition may be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents may kindly be dismissed. 8. Heard and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2006 as under: "15. प्रार्थित असाधारण अर्थिधवेशन:- अप्तिQल भा#तव3Rय श्री Qाण्डल निवप्र महासभा महासनिमनित ा प्रानिथ/त असाधा#ण अनिधवेशन न्यूनतम 60 अथवा ु ल सदस्यों े 1/5 सदस्यों द्वा#ा हस्ताक्षरि#त आवेदन पत्र प# आमंनित्रत निया जा से गा निजनमें ऐसे अनिधवेशन ो आमंनित्रत #ने ा उद्देश्य स्पष्टतः अंनित निया जायेगा। यह आवेदन पत्र महासभा े महामंत्री ो प्रेनि3त निया जायेगा। आवेदन प्राप्ति! निदनां से ए माह े भीत# महासभा ा असाधा#ण अनिधवेशन आमंनित्रत निया जायेगा। उपबंध यह होगा नि प्रानिथ/त असाधा#ण अनिधवेशन आमंनित्रत #ने ा उद्देश्य यनिद समाज निहत में न समझा जाये तो उद्देश्य े गुण दो3 ी समीक्षा े आधा# प# ाय/ारि#णी सनिमनित ो बहुमत से उस अनिधवेशन े आवेदन ो अस्वीा# #ने ा अनिधा# होगा। 4. यनिद महामंत्री उN ए माह ी अवनिध में महासभा े प्रानिथ/त असाधा#ण अनिधवेशन ो आमंनित्रत #ने ा आयोजन नहीं # से तो आवेदन र्त्ताा/ओं ो अनिधा# होगा नि वे स्वयं े हस्ताक्ष#ों से महासनिमनित े सदस्यों ो सूचना दे# ऐसा अनिधवेशन आमंनित्रत #वा सें गे।" 10. From a bare perusal of the averments of the plaint, the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and Rule 15 of the Rules, 2006, it is revealed that the suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction, and Rule 15 prescribes only one of the mechanisms to redress a dispute. Moreover, the said Rule nowhere restricts or ousts the jurisdiction of a civil court in any manner. Even otherwise, the other pleas raised in the application qua Section 92 and Order 31 of CPC are also not attracted in the present case. 11. Considering the facts of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, it cannot be said that the suit has been filed without any cause of action or that the suit is barred by law, thus, the (5 of 5) [CR-83/2026] arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 12. Apart from the above, a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 17.11.2025, 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 Rule 15 of the Rules, 2006, nor by Section 92 and Order 31 of the CPC. 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. 13. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J PRATEEK/11