Tijara(Raj.) v. Sawaisingh Son Of Chhotasingh, Resident Of Chhapur

---Defendants-Petitioners Versus

1. Sawaisingh Son Of Chhotasingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar At Present District Kherthal Tijara. Plaintiff-Respondent

2. Pooransingh Son Of Chhotasingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar At Present District Kherthal Tijara(Raj.).

3. Chhajusingh Son Of Chhotasingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar At Present District Kherthal Tijara.

4. Premdevi Wife Of Amarsingh Daughter In Law Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar. [2025:RJ-JP:16647] (2 of 5) [CR-33/2025]

5. Rajesh Son Of Amarsingh Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

6. Suresh Son Of Amarsingh Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

7. Vinod Son Of Amarsingh Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

8. Pushpender Son Of Amarsingh Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

9. Manju Daughter Of Amarsingh Grand Daughter Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

10. Sunita Daughter Of Amarsingh Grand Daughter Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

11. Bimla Wife Of Hajari Daughter In Law Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

12. Manoj Son Of Hajari Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

13. Durgesh Son Of Hajari Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

14. Meena Daughter Of Hajarisingh Grand Daughter Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

15. Mohan Son Of Babusingh Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar.

16. Dhaneshsingh Son Of Babusingh Grand Son Of Moolsingh, Resident Of Chhapur Tehsil Mundawar. Proforma-Defendants

17. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehsildar Mundawar District Kherthal Tijara.

18. Shriman Sub Registrar, Mahadaya, Mundawar District Alwar. ---Proforma-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shandilya, Adv. for respondent No.1. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment [2025:RJ-JP:16647] (3 of 5) [CR-33/2025] Date of Judgment 22/04/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the order dated

18.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Mundawar District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.34/70/2024 titled as “Sawaisingh Vs. Jadavdevi”, whereby the trial court rejected the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 20.05.1969 against the defendants as well as other proforma-defendants in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court but the trial court vide order dated 18.12.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the plaintiff had filed the said suit on 01.06.2024 after a lapse of 55 years from the date of agreement i.e. 20.05.1969. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that in the revenue suit, the plaintiff had not averred regarding so-called agreement. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the plaintiff in his suit, had not pleaded limitation regarding knowledge of said agreement. In reply of the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff stated that, he along-with his family live outside and in January 2024, he found the said agreement in an old box along-with old documents. [2025:RJ-JP:16647] (4 of 5) [CR-33/2025] So, he came to know regarding the said agreement in January,

2024. The plaintiff deliberately created the said story to bring the suit within limitation. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the plaintiff is residing in Gujarat. The said agreement was found in the month of January, 2024. So, the plaintiff filed the civil suit without any delay. He further submits that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. So, the petition filed by the defendants be dismissed and the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the trial court be affirmed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.05.1969 on

01.06.2024. Regarding the question of limitation, the plaintiff mentioned that he is residing in Gujarat and the said agreement was found in an old box in January, 2024. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff had created the said story to bring the suit within limitation. The trial court vide order dated 18.12.2024 has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the defendants. So, the present civil revision petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:16647] (5 of 5) [CR-33/2025] The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being time barred. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. Gourav/124 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J