Rajasthan High Court
Rajendra Alias Babu S/O Late Shri ... vs Jagdish Narayan Son Of Late Shri ... on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:32065]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 249/2023
Rajendra Alias Babu S/o Late Shri Moolchand, R/o Bassichak
Town Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner/Defendant
Versus
1. Jagdish Narayan Son Of Late Shri Gaindi Lal, Aged About
69 Years, Resident Of Bassi Chuck, Town Bassi, District
Jaipur.
2. Hanuman Son Of Jagdish Narayan, Aged About 44 Years,
Resident Of Bassi Chuck, Town Bassi, District Jaipur.
------Plaintiffs/Respondents
3. Bhourilal (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs
3/1.Bhagirath S/o Late Bhauri Lal,
3/2.Nathulal S/o Late Bhauri Lal,
3/3.Ramphool Son Of Late Bhauri Lal,
3/4.Ramkalyan Son Of Late Bhauri Lal,
3/5.Ramjilal S/o Late Bhaurilal,
3/6.Ramlal Son Of Late Bhaurilal, Resident Of Badgoti Ki
Dhani Near Anaj Mandi, Village Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3/7.Shanti Daughter Of Late Bhaurilal Wife Of Shri
Birdichand, Resident Of Pratap Nagar Near Bambala Pulia,
Tonk Road, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Rajasthan
3/8.Rukmani Daughter Of Late Bhaurilal Wife Of Shri Ram
Swaroop, Resident Of Village Farmpura Panchayat
Bhambhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3/9.Chota Devi Daughter Of Late Bhaurilal Wife Of Mr.
Mangilal, Resident Pratap Nagar Near Bambala Pulia, Tonk
Road, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. Balmukund Son Of Late Shri Moolchand Sharma, Resident
Of Bassi Chuck, Town Bassi, District Jaipur
5. Vijay Son Of Late Shri Moolchand Sharma, Resident Of
Bassi Chuck, Town Bassi, District Jaipur
6. Babulal Son Of Ramsahay, Aged About 53 Years, Resident
Of Bassi Chuck, Town Bassi, District Jaipur.
[2023:RJ-JP:32065] (2 of 4) [CR-249/2023]
7. Radheshyam Son Of Ramsahay, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Bassi Chuck, Town Bassi, District Jaipur
8. Rampyari Wife Of Ramsahay, Aged About 77 Years,
Resident Of Bassi Chuck, Town Bassi, District Jaipur
9. Kumari Vijay Lakshmi Daughter Of C.L.verma, Age 49
years, Resident Of-42, Bhagwati Nagar, Kartarpura, Tonk
Phatak, Jaipur
10. Rajasthan Government, District Collector Jaipur, Office Of
Collectorate Building, Bani Park, Jaipur.
11. Tehsildar, (Land Holder And Land-Record) Bassi, Office Of
Tehsil Building, Bassi, Tahsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
----Defendants/Proforma Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Ranjan
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
31/10/2023
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
14.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bassi,
Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil
Suit No.68/2021 (CIS No.85/2021) whereby, an application filed
by the petitioner/defendant no.3 (for brevity, "the defendant
no.3") under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, has been
dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents no.1 &
2/plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs") filed a suit against the
defendant no.3 and the proforma respondents no.3 to 11 seeking
a decree of declaration inter alia that the judgment and decree
dated 17.08.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur
District, Jaipur in case no.347/2007 (NCB No.2206/2014) be
[2023:RJ-JP:32065] (3 of 4) [CR-249/2023]
declared null and void against their rights. Therein, an application
filed by the defendant no.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with
Section 151 CPC raising objection as to maintainability of the suit,
has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order impugned
dated 14.07.2023.
Assailing the validity of the order dated 14.07.2023, learned
counsel for the defendant no.3 submits that the suit seeking
declaration qua the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2017 is hit
by the law of limitation. He submits that the plaintiffs were parties
to the suit and had filed their written statement way back in the
year 2008. He further submits that although, the plaintiffs, who
were defendants no.5 & 6 in the earlier suit, were deleted from
the array of the defendants; but, it could be presumed that they
had knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2017
from the inception and therefore, the suit filed by them in the year
2021 assailing its validity was barred by the law of limitation. He,
therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the order
dated 14.07.2023 be quashed and set aside and the application
filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed.
Heard. Considered.
It is trite law that while considering the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the plaint
are to be taken into consideration and defence of the defendants
is totally irrelevant.
Indisputably, the plaintiffs, who were defendants no.5 & 6 in
the Civil Suit No.347/2007, were deleted from the array of
defendants way back in the year 2016. In these circumstances,
this Court finds no reason to disagree with the averments
[2023:RJ-JP:32065] (4 of 4) [CR-249/2023]
contained in the plaint that the plaintiffs came to know of the
judgment and decree dated 17.08.2017 in the year 2021, when
their rights in the subject immovable property were sought to be
interfered with in its garb.
In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the
application filed by the defendant no.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read
with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground
of it being hit by the law of limitation.
Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
