Nehnu Ram vs Smt Birdhi Devi And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7409 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 204/2015

Nehnu Ram S/o Late Shri Kana, R/o Amraka Ki Dhani, Village
Jaisinghpura Khor, Tehsil And District Jaipur
                                ---Defendant-Petitioner-Applicant
                                  Versus
1.     Smt. Birdi Devi W/o Narayan Lal, D/o Late Bhura, R/o
       Nathuka Ki Dhani, Village Jaisinghpura Khor, Tehsil And
       District Jaipur through the Power of Attorney Holder Shri
       Suraj Mal Saini S/o Shri Narayan Lal aged about 27 years,
       r/o Nathika Ki Dhani, Village Jaisinghpura Khor, Tehsil And
       District Jaipur
                                              .........Respondent-plaintiff

2. Tulsi Ram S/o Late Kana,

3. Babu S/o Late Kana,

4. Smt. Prabhati Devi W/o Late Kana,

5. Badri S/o Late Gulla,

6. Manna S/o Late Magya,

7. Chanda S/o Late Shrawan,

8. Kalu S/o Late Shrawan,

9. Tulsi Ram S/o Late Shri Shrawan,

10. Raju S/o Late Narayan,

11. Ratan S/o Late Bhaurya,

12. Gopal S/o Late Bhaurya,

13. Prabhu S/o Seva,

14. Hanuman S/o Seva,

15. Lachchhu S/o Seva,

16. Ganesh S/o Seva,

17. Chhoturam S/o Late Narayan,

18. Suja W/o Babu Lal, All R/o Amraka Ki Dhani, Village Jaisinghpura Khor, Tehsil & District Jaipur

19. Smt. Meera D/o Gulla, R/o Boriyala Ki Dhani, Village Jaisinghpura Khor, Tehsil And District Jaipur

20. Smt. Shyama D/o Gulla, R/o Number-A-8 Heeda Ki Mori,

(2 of 3) [CR-204/2015]

Laxminarayanpur, Galta Road, Jaipur

21. Smt. Phoola D/o Babu Lal, R/o Londkya Ki Dhani, Near Patta Ka Choraha, Amer, District Jaipur

22. Smt. Gyarsi Devi W/o Late Ramu, D/o Late Bhoora, R/o Bodyawala Ki Dhani, Village Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur

23. Bobadi Gram Nirman Sahakari Simiti Limited Through Its, President, Birdi Chand Kala, R/o Plot No.5, Tara Nagar-I, Jhotwara, Jaipur

24. Chiranji Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay Gurjar, R/o Rohit Nagar-I, Keshav Vidhyapith, Jaipur

25. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaipur

---Performa-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Ms. Deepti Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

22/11/2022

1. Petitioner-Defendant has filed this revision petition under

Section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 5.11.2015 passed by

the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jaipur

Metropolitan in civil suit No.975/2015 whereby and whereunder

his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the plaint does not

disclose any cause of action until declaration of Khatedari right is

not made in favour of plaintiff. The civil suit challenging the

agreement in question is not maintainable.

3. Perusal of plaint goes to show that the plaintiff has claimed

Khatedari rights in the land in question alleging that the same is

ancestral and has filed the present civil suit challenging the

(3 of 3) [CR-204/2015]

agreement as forged and fabricated. Plaintiff has pleaded that the

Co-operative Society forgedly prepared agreement having

connivance with other co-defendants, such agreement and

documents are forged and fabricated as also null and void qua the

rights of plaintiff.

4. According to the pleadings of plaint, the plaintiff has claimed

her Khatedari Rights by way of inheritance and alleged that the

property in question is ancestral. Further the documents in

question have been challenged being forged and fabricated. As per

pleadings of plaint, the suit is not liable to be rejected under Order

7 Rule 11 CPC.

5. Learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 5.11.2015,

has dismissed the application with observation that the civil court

has jurisdiction to hear the present civil suit and the same

discloses a right to sue.

6. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Horil Vs. Keshav and Another [(2012)5 SCC 525], the issue

of forgery is to be examined by the civil court only and therefore,

the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity

and jurisdictional error.

7. As a result, the revision petition is devoid of merits and is

hereby dismissed.

8. Stay application and any other pending application, if any,

stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

TN/59

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)