Alok Prabhune S/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, Aged v. Dr Sanjay Prabhune S/o

Dr Sanjay Prabhune S/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o 602, Laxmi Villa Apartment, D-6, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur.

2. Smt Vandanakant, W/o Shri Vilas Go. Kant, D/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o 1-701, Rosevally Peepale Saudagar, Pune (Maharashtra)

3. Smt Vivedita Bhadkamkar, W/o Shri Ninad Bhadkamkar, D/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, Aged About 46 Years, R/o A-704, Royal Arket, Reliance Township Ke Pass, Dummat Road Peeplod, Surat (Gujrat)

4. Dr. Soniya Berve W/o Dr. Sandeep Berve, D/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o 27, Sangatha Bungalov Samasanwali Road, Baroda, (Gujarat)

5. Lalit Kishore Jaju, S/o Shri Bal Kiishan Jaju, R/o House No. 2919, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

6. Smt Santosh Jaju W/o Shri Lalit Kishore Jaju, R/o House No. 2919, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

7. Smt Anita Jaju, W/o Shri Chandra Bihari Jaju, R/o House No. 2919, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. Connected With ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:17446] (2 of 6) [CR-142/2015] S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 185/2015

1. Lalit Kishore Jaju S/o Shri Bal Kishan Jaju, R/o House No. 2919, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

2. Smt Santosh Jaju, W/o Shri Lalit Kishore Jaju, R/o House No. 2919, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur

3. Smt Anita Jaju, W/o Shri Chandra Bihari Jaju, R/o House No. 2919, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus

1. Dr Sanjay Prabhune S/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o 602, Laxmi Villa Apartment, D-6, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur.

2. Shashi Kumar Prabhune S/o Late Shri Gangadhar Rao Prabhune, (Deceased), Aged About 87 Years, Gangadhar Rao Prabhune R/o Ke-5-6, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur Rajasthan

3. Smt Madhumati Prabhune, W/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o Ke-5-6, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur Rajasthan

4. Pramod Prabhune S/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o Ke-5-6, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur Rajasthan

5. Alok Prabhune, S/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o Flat No 802, Anita Enclave, Plot No A-26, Jai Singh Highway, Banipark , Jaipur Rajasthan

6. Smt Vandanakant, W/o Shri Vilas Go. Kant D/o Shri Shashi Kumar, Prabhune R/o I-701, Rosevally Peepale Saudagar, Pune Maharashtra

7. Smt Nivedita Bhadkamkar, W/o Shri Ninad Bhadkamkar, D/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o A-704, Royal Arket Reliance Townsihp Ke Pass, Dummat Road, Peeplod, Surat Gujarat.

8. Dr Soniya Berve W/o Dr Sandeep Berve, D/o Shri Shashi Kumar Prabhune, R/o 27, Sangatha Bungalow, Samasanwali Road, Baroda Gujarat ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, Adv. in civil [2025:RJ-JP:17446] (3 of 6) [CR-142/2015] For Respondent(s) : revision petition No. 142/2015 Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv. in civil revision petition No. 185/3015 Mr. R K Daga, Adv. with Mr. R S Chouhan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 25/04/2025 These civil revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 15/15, whereby the trial Court dismissed the applications filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit against the defendants for partition, declaration, cancellation of sale deed and gift deed and permanent injunction. Counsel further submits that prior to this suit, on the basis of similar facts plaintiff also filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction before the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan in which compromise was arrived in between the parties and on account of compromise Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan vide its order dated 18.10.2014 in case No. 41/14 decided the suit. He also submits that present suit was also filed by plaintiff on similar facts. So, the plaintiff had no right to file the present suit because it is barred by res judicata as the controversy in the present suit had already been decided, but the trial Court vide its order dated

22.07.2015 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:17446] (4 of 6) [CR-142/2015] defendants. So, the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on account of res judicata. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and Anr. Vs. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (Dead Through LRs) in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4812/2023 decided on 21.04.2025;

2. Lrs of Basanti Devi and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in civil writ petition No. 2479/2006 connected with Navin Bhansali and Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and Ors. in civil writ petition No. 4974/2007 decided on 22.11.2021;

3. Darshan Singh Vs. Jeet Singh and Ors. in civil first appeal No. 68/2019 decided on 05.08.2020;

4. Gopal Lal vs. Babu Lal in civil special appeal No. 80/1995 decided on 09.03.24;

5. M/s Sree Surya Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and ors. reported in 2022(2) CCC 226 (SC);

6. Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajender Singh and ors. reported in 2006 (6) CCC 540 SC;

7. Lakshmamma and Ors. Vs. T.H. Ramegowda and Ors. reported in 2016(1) CCC 477 Karnataka HC (DB);

8. R. Rajanna Vs. S.R. Venkataswamy reported in AIR 2015 SC 706;

9. Gopal Lal Vs. Babu Lal and Ors. reported in 1997 (1) CCC 8 Rajasthan HC; [2025:RJ-JP:17446] (5 of 6) [CR-142/2015]

10. Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar and Anr. reported in 2015 (1) WLC Raj. 721;

11. Moorti Vs. Kaur Singh and ors. reported in 28 (4) CCC 022 (P&H);

12. Rajesh Rawat & Anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Bulandsher & Ors. reported in 2012 (2) CCC 532 (Allahabad);

13. Anandan Vs. Nanu reported in 2007 (2) CCC 552 (kerala)

14. Dharam Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh reported in 2010 (1) CCC 195 (P&H). Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the said suit was not decided on merits. Defendants had wrongly created the so-called compromise and signature of the plaintiff was obtained fraudulently and defendants had not complied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the point of res judicata does not come within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Defendants had a liberty to take all the averments in the written statement and trial Court be directed to decide the point of res judicata as a preliminary issue. Therefore, the petitions filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. Spihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99; [2025:RJ-JP:17446] (6 of 6) [CR-142/2015]

2. Kamala & Ors. Vs. K.T. Eshwarasa & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661 and

3. A. A. Gopalkrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. In application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, defendants alleged that on same facts previous suit was decided on merits, so, plaintiff had no cause of action in his favour and the suit is barred by res judicata. In my considered opinion, point of res judicata as well as cause of action would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the present civil revision petitions filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the issue of res judicata as well as cause of action as a preliminary issue. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/3-4 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J