Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunita vs Subhashchandra Ranka on 14 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:44171]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156/2025
Sunita W/o Late Shri Hansraj Chaplot, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Currently R/o At 16,
Jankinagar Main, Near Ramesh And Ramesh, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Subhashchandra Ranka S/o Sh. Lalchandji Ranka,
Occupation Doctor R/o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Snehlata Ranka W/o Dr. Subhashchandra Ranka,
Occupation Doctor R/o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
3. Ritika D/o Late Shri Hansraj Chaplot, R/o Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Currently R/o 16,
Jankinagar Main, Near Ramesh And Ramesh, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
4. Tanvi D/o Late Shri Hansraj Chaplot, R/o Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Currently R/o 16,
Jankinagar Main, Near Ramesh And Ramesh, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 157/2025
Sunita W/o Late Shri Hansraj Chaplot, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Nimbahera, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Currently Residing At 16,
Jankinagar Main, Near Ramesh And Ramesh, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Subhashchandra Ranka S/o Sh. Lalchandji Ranka,
Occupation Doctor R/o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Snehlata Ranka W/o Dr. Subhashchandra Ranka,
Occupation Doctor R/o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 06:43:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44171] (2 of 8) [CR-157/2025]
3. Ritika D/o Late Shri Hansraj Chaplot, R/o Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Currently R/o 16,
Jankinagar Main, Near Ramesh And Ramesh, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
4. Tanvi D/o Late Shri Hansraj Chaplot, R/o Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Currently R/o 16,
Jankinagar Main, Near Ramesh And Ramesh, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Tatiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on:- 07/10/2025
Pronounced on:- 14/10/2025
1. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions involve a common
question of law, the same are decided by this common order.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed two
suits, being Civil Original Suit No. 30/2016 (CIS No.75/2018) and
Civil Original Suit No. 31/2016 (CIS No.76/2018), before the
learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh.
3. In Civil Original Suit No. 30/2016 (CIS No.75/2018), it was
stated that the original defendant No.1, namely Hansraj Chaplot,
and respondents/plaintiffs No.1 and 2 entered into an agreement
to sell dated 10.07.2013 for the sale of a three-storied building
known as "Chopda Wali Haveli" located in Nimbahera, Rajasthan.
The total sale price of the property in question was disclosed to be
Rs. 25,00,000/-. Against the total sale consideration of Rs.
25,00,000/-, the original defendant received an advance payment
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44171] (3 of 8) [CR-157/2025]
of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The remaining amount was to be paid within
eleven months. The sale agreement was executed between the
parties in the presence of one Mr. Sudhir Kumar Kumawat. Upon
failure of the original defendant to execute the sale deed pursuant
to the agreement to sell dated 10.07.2013, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance and
permanent injunction, seeking enforcement of the said sale
agreement and a permanent injunction restraining the
petitioner/defendant from alienating the property or creating
third-party rights over it.
4. In Civil Original Suit No.31/2016 (CIS No.76/2018), it was
stated that a loan agreement dated 10.07.2013 was executed
between original defendant No.1 - Hansraj Chaplot and original
defendant No.2 - Sunita, as the first party, and
respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 as the second party, whereby a
loan of Rs. 35,00,000/- was advanced by the
respondents/plaintiffs to the petitioners/defendants for their
business activities and for the construction of a multi-storied
building. As security for the loan, seven undated cheques of Rs.
5,00,000/- each were handed over to the respondents/plaintiffs.
Upon failure of the petitioners/defendants to repay the amount, a
summary suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.
47,70,000/-, including the principal and accrued interest as per
the terms of the agreement, was instituted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted
that in both suits, the petitioners/defendants filed applications
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44171] (4 of 8) [CR-157/2025]
ground that, in both plaints, it is stated that an advance payment
of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- was made in cash towards the
alleged transactions. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, in the case of "The Correspondence, RBANMS
Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashankar & Anr." reported
in 2025 INSC 490, directed that whenever a suit is filed with a
claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- and above being paid in cash towards any
transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the
jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the transaction and
to examine any violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act.
It was urged that the suits were filed in utter disregard of the
provisions of the Income Tax Act and were based on agreements
that do not fulfill the essential ingredients of a valid contract under
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. According to learned
counsel, Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act mandatorily
prescribes attestation of an agreement by at least two witnesses,
whereas, in the present case, the agreements were attested by
only one witness, namely Mr. Sudhir Kumar Kumawat. Learned
counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in "Asha John Divianathan vs. Vikram Malhotra
& Ors." reported in AIR 2021 SC 293.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants further
submitted that the learned trial Court, while rejecting the
applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide orders dated
31.07.2025, failed to consider that the civil suits filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs are barred by the provisions of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and therefore,
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44171] (5 of 8) [CR-157/2025]
the same ought to be rejected as being barred under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC. Learned counsel thus prayed that the impugned orders
dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No.2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, in Civil Original Suits
No.30/2016 and 31/2016 be set aside and the applications filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/plaintiffs supported the impugned orders. He
submitted that a careful perusal of the same indicates that no
illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court while
rejecting the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, as the
plaints clearly disclose a cause of action that is not barred by law.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned orders dated 31.07.2025.
9. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:-
"11. Rejection of plaint:- The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff,
on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within
a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint
is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the
requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court,
fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of
rule 9
[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction
of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper
shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be
recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any
cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44171] (6 of 8) [CR-157/2025]
or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be,
within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend
such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]"
10. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of "RBANMS" (supra) are reproduced below for
ready reference:-
"(A) Whenever, a suit is field with a claim that
Rs.2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any
transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the
jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the
transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the
Income Tax Act, if any.
(B) Whenever, any such information is received either from
the court or otherwise, the Jurisdictional Income Tax
Authority shall take appropriate steps by following the due
process in law,
(C) Whenever, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and above is
claimed to be paid by cash towards consideration for
conveyance of any immovable property in a document
presented for registration, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar
shall intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax
Authority who shall follow the due process in law before
taking any action,
(D) Whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any Income
Tax Authority that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or above has
been paid by way of consideration in any transaction
relating to any immovable property from any other source
or during the course of search or assessment proceedings,
the failure of the registering authority shall be brought to
the knowledge of Chief Secretary of the State/ UT for
initiating appropriate disciplinary action against such officer
who failed to intimate the transactions."
11. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is reproduced
below for ready reference:
"10. What agreements are contracts.-
All agreements are contracts if they are made by the
free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby
expressly declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force
and not hereby repealed by which any contract is required
to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or
any law relating to the registration of documents."
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44171] (7 of 8) [CR-157/2025]
12. Upon careful perusal of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "RBANMS" (supra) and Section 10 of the
Indian Contract Act, this Court finds that the learned trial Court
has committed no illegality or perversity in rejecting the
applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. This is for the reason
that the directions in "RBANMS" (supra) pertain to the action to
be taken by the courts in suits where it is claimed that Rs.
2,00,000/- and above were paid in cash towards a transaction, to
enable verification under Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act,
1961. However, such a direction does not render the suit itself
non-maintainable. A suit cannot be dismissed merely on the
ground of alleged non-compliance with the said directions if it
otherwise discloses a cause of action. Hence, reference to
"RBANMS" (supra) is misplaced and cannot be a ground for
rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
13. As far as the contention of the petitioners/defendants that
the agreement forming the basis of the suit is void on the ground
that it bears the signature of only one witness, namely Mr. Sudhir
Kumar Kumawat, is concerned, it is sufficient to note that Section
10 of the Indian Contract Act nowhere mandates attestation by
any specific number of witnesses. In fact, as per Section 10, the
presence of witnesses does not affect the validity of a contract
unless expressly required by the statute under which the
agreement has been executed.
14. In the opinion of this Court, the plea raised by the
petitioners/defendants pertains to the evidentiary validity of the
document and cannot be examined at the stage of considering an
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44171] (8 of 8) [CR-157/2025]
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In the present case, since
the plaints clearly disclose a cause of action that is not barred by
any law, the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC have rightly
been rejected by the learned trial Court as being devoid of merit.
15. In light of the above discussion, the impugned orders dated
31.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the
applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are affirmed. The
present revision petitions and all pending applications are
accordingly dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
4-5 divya/-
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 01:13:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
