Neelkanth Colony, Near Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur v. Vivekanand Mishr Son Of Lt

Judgment

1. Vivekanand Mishr Son Of Lt. Shri Kailashchand Mishr, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Shikshak Colony, Gupteshwar Road, Dausa, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa. ----Respondent-Plaintiff

2. Satishchand S/o Krishanchand Sharma, R/o Jaipur At Present 4/1065C, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Pramod Sharma S/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o Krishnachand W/o Lt. Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur.

4. Ms. Vandana Sharma D/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o Krishnachand W/o Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur.

5. Sameer Sharma S/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o Krishnachand W/o Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur.

6. Sadhna Sharma D/o Smt. Vidha Devi D/o Krishnachand W/o Gordhanlal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Plot No.11 Subhash Nagar, Jaipur At Present Residing At Iv -D, 112 Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Raj.

7. Smt. Tara Sharma D/o Nathulal W/o Shri Ramakant Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

8. Sm.t Ambika Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o Shri Mukesh Joshi, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

9. Smt. Kusum Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o Shri Prakashchand Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

10. Smt. Gayatri Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o Nikesh Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:28622] (2 of 5) [CR-369/2024]

11. Smt. Snehlata Sharma D/o Nathulal Sharma W/o Blamukund Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

12. Harish Bhamoriya S/o Nathulal Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

13. Smt. Usha Sharma W/o Lt. Shri Mahesh Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

14. Smt. Aastha Sharma D/o Lt. Shri Mahesh Sharma W/o Himanshu Sharma, R/o 62 Neelkanth Colony, Nearby Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

15. Chandresh S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, R/o Subhash Colony, Shree Ramkaran Joshi Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Dausa, Tehsil And District Dausa.

16. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Dausa.

17. Land Holder Tehsildar, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.

18. Sub Registrar, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.

19. Municipal Council, Dausa Through Commissioner Municipal Council, Dausa. ----Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv. Ms. Yashika Vijayvargia, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 30 /07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short 'the defendant') under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate Dausa, District Dausa (for short 'the trial Court') in case No. 112/2024 titled as "Vivekanand Mishr vs. [2025:RJ-JP:28622] (3 of 5) [CR-369/2024] Satishchand and Ors.", by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 19 in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mentioning therein that Power of Attorney Holder-Chandresh Sharma had no right to sell the disputed plot (mentioned in the para No. 5 of the plaint) to plaintiff's father Kailashchandra Mishr on 20.01.1997 through agreement because Krishanchandra purportedly executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent No. 15- Chandresh Sharma and thereafter, Krishanchandra expired on 22.05.1994. So, said Power of Attorney became invalid. So, plaintiff's father Kailashchandra Mishr had also no right to sell these plots to his son-plaintiff on 16.11.2000 by agreement. So, Kailashchandra Mishr could not give a better title than he himself possessed. So, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit but the trial Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned senior counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs in civil appeal No. 2960/2019 decided on

13.03.2019. [2025:RJ-JP:28622] (4 of 5) [CR-369/2024]

2. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) thr. Lrs & Ors. in civil appeal No. 9519/2019 decided on

09.07.2020. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that trial Court while dismissing the application rightly came to the conclusion that objection raised by the defendant is to be decided after the evidence of the parties and therefore, suit cannot be dismissed at this stage. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that Krishanchandra has executed Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No. 15-Chandresh Sharma. Krishanchandra expired on 22.05.1994. So, said Power of Attorney is invalid for sale of the plot after the death of Krishanchandra. As per the contents of the plaint, Kailashchandra purchased the disputed plot by agreement dated 20.01.1997 and subsequently, he sold the said plot to his son-plaintiff by agreement dated 16.11.2000. At the time of execution of agreement dated 20.01.1997, said Power of Attorney was not valid on account of death of the Krishanchandra. So, Kailashchandra had not get any right with regard to the disputed plot and he had no right to sell the same to his son on

16.11.2000. So, in my considered opinion, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit but the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:28622] (5 of 5) [CR-369/2024] defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed; the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of action. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/90 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J