Jagdish Narain Pareek v. Kamlesh Jain & Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision No
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Mr. Sonu D/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Mohan Singh Vaaya Maanakhedi, Maanpura, Srinagar, Ajmer. Mr. Ramesh S/o Late Mangu Singh Rawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nadeliya Karnos, Ajmer. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Secretary, Todermal Road, Civil Lines, Ajmer. ----Respondents
5. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ridhvick Dosi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 01/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 6 (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.02/2023 (CIS No.05/2023), whereby the [2025:RJ-JP:29251] (2 of 4) [CR-187/2023] application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaring the patta issued in favour of the defendants as null and void in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but trial court vide order dated 17.07.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs in their suit had claimed the disputed property as inheritor of Mangu S/o Jeeta @ Jheeta. As per their contention, share of Jeeta @ Jheeta S/o Urja in disputed property was 5/6th and share of Bhiya S/o Sawai was 1/6th but in revenue record, it was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya. It was also submitted that land is agriculture land and civil court had no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that in suit, plaintiffs had not mentioned that when did they got knowledge about the disputed documents. So, present suit filed by them was time barred. It was also stated that without getting declared their khatedari right, they have no right to file the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed. So, order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Jagdish Narain Pareek Vs. Kamlesh Jain & Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision No.225/2007 decided on 02.06.2017; (2) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:29251] (3 of 4) [CR-187/2023] Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal No.2960/2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.20068/2013) decided on 13.03.2019; (3) Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7773/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.22126/2009) decided on 09.09.2011 and (4) Vinay Krishna Vs. Keshav Chandra & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3654/1983 decided on
06.03.1992. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that disputed land was in khatedari of Bhiya and Jeeta @ Jheeta. Share of Jeeta @ Jheeta was 5/6th and share of Bhiya was 1/6th but entire land was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya and after his death, it was wrongly entered in the name of his sons namely Laddu, Hajari and Lala. Subsequently, sale deed was executed in the name of Madhu Rathore and in the year 2016, Madhu Rathore sold the land to the defendants. Plaintiffs got knowledge of these documents when land was converted and patta was issued in the year 2022. So, plaintiffs filed the suit in the year 2023. Thus, it was within limitation. It was also stated that the said land is converted as a commercial land. So, it cannot be said that it is a revenue land. So, suit shall lie with the civil court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the defendants would be decided in the suit after framing the issues. So, present petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:29251] (4 of 4) [CR-187/2023] Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5641/2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.26441/2014) decided on 17.09.2021 and (2) Smt Suadevi Vs. Shravan & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.286/2014 decided on 25.01.2021. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that disputed land was in the joint ownership of Jeeta @ Jheeta and Bhiya. In revenue record, it was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya and after his death, it was entered in the name of Ladu, Hajari and Lala. Subsequently, entire land was sold and was converted as a commercial land and patta was also issued. So, it cannot be said that the present land is revenue land and suit cannot be entertained by the civil court. For cause of action, the plaintiffs in their suit clearly mentioned that when the defendants got the patta on account of conversation, they got knowledge regarding sale. So, in my considered opinion, trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants had not committed any error because objection raised by the defendants would be decided in the suit after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. Jatin /95 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Mr. Sonu D/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Mohan Singh Vaaya Maanakhedi, Maanpura, Srinagar, Ajmer. Mr. Ramesh S/o Late Mangu Singh Rawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nadeliya Karnos, Ajmer. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Secretary, Todermal Road, Civil Lines, Ajmer. ----Respondents
5. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ridhvick Dosi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 01/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 6 (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.02/2023 (CIS No.05/2023), whereby the [2025:RJ-JP:29251] (2 of 4) [CR-187/2023] application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaring the patta issued in favour of the defendants as null and void in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but trial court vide order dated 17.07.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs in their suit had claimed the disputed property as inheritor of Mangu S/o Jeeta @ Jheeta. As per their contention, share of Jeeta @ Jheeta S/o Urja in disputed property was 5/6th and share of Bhiya S/o Sawai was 1/6th but in revenue record, it was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya. It was also submitted that land is agriculture land and civil court had no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that in suit, plaintiffs had not mentioned that when did they got knowledge about the disputed documents. So, present suit filed by them was time barred. It was also stated that without getting declared their khatedari right, they have no right to file the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed. So, order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Jagdish Narain Pareek Vs. Kamlesh Jain & Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision No.225/2007 decided on 02.06.2017; (2) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:29251] (3 of 4) [CR-187/2023] Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal No.2960/2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.20068/2013) decided on 13.03.2019; (3) Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7773/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.22126/2009) decided on 09.09.2011 and (4) Vinay Krishna Vs. Keshav Chandra & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3654/1983 decided on
06.03.1992. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that disputed land was in khatedari of Bhiya and Jeeta @ Jheeta. Share of Jeeta @ Jheeta was 5/6th and share of Bhiya was 1/6th but entire land was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya and after his death, it was wrongly entered in the name of his sons namely Laddu, Hajari and Lala. Subsequently, sale deed was executed in the name of Madhu Rathore and in the year 2016, Madhu Rathore sold the land to the defendants. Plaintiffs got knowledge of these documents when land was converted and patta was issued in the year 2022. So, plaintiffs filed the suit in the year 2023. Thus, it was within limitation. It was also stated that the said land is converted as a commercial land. So, it cannot be said that it is a revenue land. So, suit shall lie with the civil court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the defendants would be decided in the suit after framing the issues. So, present petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:29251] (4 of 4) [CR-187/2023] Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5641/2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.26441/2014) decided on 17.09.2021 and (2) Smt Suadevi Vs. Shravan & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.286/2014 decided on 25.01.2021. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that disputed land was in the joint ownership of Jeeta @ Jheeta and Bhiya. In revenue record, it was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya and after his death, it was entered in the name of Ladu, Hajari and Lala. Subsequently, entire land was sold and was converted as a commercial land and patta was also issued. So, it cannot be said that the present land is revenue land and suit cannot be entertained by the civil court. For cause of action, the plaintiffs in their suit clearly mentioned that when the defendants got the patta on account of conversation, they got knowledge regarding sale. So, in my considered opinion, trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants had not committed any error because objection raised by the defendants would be decided in the suit after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. Jatin /95 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J