Devendra Ranka S/O Shri Ummed ... vs Smt. Mamta Pipada W/O Shri Rajesh ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6632 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 86/2019

Devendra Ranka S/o Shri Ummed Singh Ji Ranka
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Smt. Mamta Pipada W/o Shri Rajesh Ji Pipada & Ors.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :    Ms. Sunaina Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Loknath Acharya
                               Mr. Amol Vyas



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

13/10/2022

1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner-defendant

challenging the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in civil suit

N0.20/2018 by Senior Civil Judge, Beawar whereby and

whereunder the application filed by petitioner-defendant under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of

Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji bhanusali (Gajra) Dead

through LRs. & Ors. [(2020)7 SCC366] to contend that non

payment of sale consideration is not a ground seeking cancellation

of sale deed and at the most the plaintiff could have filed a suit for

recovery of the sale consideration.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has placed

reliance on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

of Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. [AIR(2022)SC

564], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a

sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without

(2 of 2) [CR-86/2019]

payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of

price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. In

view of above, the matter requires consideration.

4. Admit.

5. Notice need not be issued as respondents are represented

through his counsel.

6. Counsel for respondent submits that he wants to move an

application for seeking amendment in the plaint for an alternative

prayer for recovery of unpaid amount of sale consideration. If any

such application is filed by the plaintiff, the learned trial court may

decide the same in accordance with law. It has been informed that

issues have not yet been framed.

7. Having considered the point involved in the instant revision

petition, this Court deems it just and proper that instead of

staying further proceedings of the suit, it is hereby observed that

the trial court after framing of issues would not initiate the trial of

the present suit until decision of this revision petition.

8. Accordingly, the stay application stands disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

TN/72

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)