Teja Ram vs Jhamku Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 17844 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 84/2021

1. Teja Ram S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Agolai, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

2. Narayan Ram S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Agolai, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

3. Mirga Devi W/o Chela Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Duda Bera, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus Smt. Jhamku Devi W/o Ghewar Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Devgarh, Agolai, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

26/11/2021

The petitioners-defendants by way of this revision petition,

have assailed the order dated 08.10.2021 whereby their

application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC

has been dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur

District (for short 'trial Court').

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

respondent has filed civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated

19.08.2015 on the ground that the sale consideration paid by the

petitioners by way of cheques has not been received to him as all

the cheques were dishonored.

It has been argued that non-payment of sale consideration

itself does not give rise to any cause of action so as to file suit for

(2 of 2) [CR-84/2021]

cancellation of the sale deed and at the most plaintiff should or

could have file suit for claiming for the amount of unpaid sale

consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No.9519/2019 (Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji

Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead) reported in (2020) 7 Supreme Court

Cases 366.

Heard.

Perused the pleadings of plaint as well as the impugned

order. It reveals that in the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned the

pleadings for accrual of cause of action to file the present suit and

at the stage of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC,

the court is not required to examine the validity/truthfulness of

the cause of action. Accordingly, the suit is not liable to be

rejected within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the aforesaid

ground.

This Court do not find any illegality much less jurisdictional

error in the impugned order and same is not required to be

interferred with. The ratio of law, laid down by the Honb'le

Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben (supra) is not applicable to

the facts of the present case and that has been passed in different

context.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is devoid of merits

and hence dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

12-AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)