Through Power Of Attorney Holder Kishan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Lalli v. Pushparaj Sharma S/o Late

Judgment

1. Pushparaj Sharma S/o Late Shri Chadramohan Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No. 173 Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

Babulal Sharma S/o Late Shri Chotelal Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Plot No. 3104, Bhindo Ka Rasta, Fourth Crossing, Near By Police Station, Jaipur, 302001.

3. Gopal Sharma S/o Late Shri Chotelal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Plot No. 1402, Baba Harishchandra Marg, Second Crossing, Indra Bazar, Khuteto Ka Rasta, Jaipur, 302001.

4. Smt. Aasha Sharma W/o Late Shri Rajesh Sharma, R/o Plot No. 173 Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

5. Kumari Falguni Sharma D/o Late Shri Rajesh Sharma, R/o Plot No. 173 Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

6. Hemant Sharma S/o Late Shri Rajesh Sharma, R/o Plot No. 173 Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Pancholi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 30/07/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metro-I (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.10/2022, whereby the trial court [2025:RJ-JP:27715] (2 of 5) [CR-212/2022] dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaring the registered sale deed dated 18.10.2010 as well as Will dated

30.03.2003 as null and void against the defendant as well as respondent Nos.2 to 6 in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The suit was filed by the plaintiff is time barred and he had not paid the proper court fees but the trial court vide its order dated 28.05.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that regarding the Will dated 30.03.2003 which is sought to be null and void, the plaintiff had came to know in the year 2005 when he filed another suit against Chhote Lal. In the said suit, Chhote Lal submitted Will dated 30.03.2003 and proved the same from his evidence. So far as the registered sale deed dated 18.10.2010 is concerned, which has also been sought to be declared as null and void by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had came to know regarding the said sale deed in the year 2012, when the suit No.212/2012 was filed by tenant-Shambhu Singh in the court of Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur City, wherein the plaintiff’s advocate produced the certified copy of the said sale deed dated 18.10.2010. The defendant also sent a registered notice to the plaintiff on

22.04.2014 for revocation of the licence regarding the disputed Plot No.173 situated at Vasundra Colony and for mesne profit but the plaintiff did not do so. The defendant filed a suit on

17.12.2014 before the District Judge, Jaipur for possession and [2025:RJ-JP:27715] (3 of 5) [CR-212/2022] mesne profit. So, plaintiff got the knowledge regarding the said sale deed in the year 2012 but he did not file the suit within the prescribed limitation period of three years and filed the same in the year 2022. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiff had not paid the requisite court fees. So, order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Anr., in civil appeal No. 14807/2024, decided on 20.12.2024. (2) Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. Vs. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 434. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the trial court had only considered the averments of the plaint and not the defence and documents filed by the defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff clearly mentioned that cause of action regarding cancellation of the said sale deed and Will was accrued on

10.12.2021, so, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that it is a matter of evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that he had filed proper court fees for declaring the sale deed as well as Will as null and void. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:27715] (4 of 5) [CR-212/2022] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Ors., reported in 2021(226) AIC 1. (2) P. Kumarakurubaran Vs. P. Narayanan and Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 598. (3) Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors., reported in 2010(89) AIC 215. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had knowledge of the Will dated 30.03.2003 in the year 2005, when the suit was filed by Pushparaj Sharma against Chhote Lal and Chhote Lal submitted the Will dated 30.03.2003 and proved the same from his evidence. Similarly, the plaintiff came to know regarding sale deed dated 18.10.2010 in the year 2012, when the suit No.212/2012 was filed by tenant-Shambhu Singh in the court of Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur City, wherein the plaintiff’s advocate produced the certified copy of the said sale deed dated

18.10.2010. The plaintiff also received a notice for revocation of the licence and mesne profit on 22.04.2014. A suit was also filed against the plaintiff on 17.12.2014 and the said suit was decided on 20.12.2019. So, in my considered opinion, the averments of the plaintiff that cause of action was accrued to him on

10.12.2021 is not true and he came to know regarding the disputed Will in the year 2005 and about sale deed dated

18.10.2010 in the year 2012 but he had filed the suit in the year [2025:RJ-JP:27715] (5 of 5) [CR-212/2022] 2022, which is time barred. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant. So, present petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the trial court is set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limitation. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. Avinash/82 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J