[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radheyshyam vs Bhajanlal (2026:Rj-Jd:15112) on 2 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:15112]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 211/2025
1. Radheyshyam S/o Shri Bagadaram Bishnoi, Aged About
63 Years, Resident Of Modern Market, Bikaner.
2. Gopiram S/o Shri Bagadaram Bishnoi, Aged About 56
Years, Resident Of Modern Market, Bikaner.
3. Shankarlal S/o Shri Bagadaram Bishnoi, Aged About 59
Years, Resident Of Modern Market, Bikaner.
4. Laxman S/o Shri Bagadaram Bishnoi, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of Modern Market, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Bhajanlal S/o Shri Bagadarm, Resident Of Modern Market,
Bikaner, At Present Ward No. 6, Nokha.
2. Shri Maniram S/o Shri Bagadarm, Resident Of Village
Jegla, Pannadroga, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
3. Barju Widow of Shri Bagadarm, Resident Of Village Jegla.
Pannadroga, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner
4. Smt Radha W/o Manni Ram Saharan, D/o Shri Bagadarm
Resident Of Saharan Bhawan, Opposite Hospital Nagor
5. Smt Savitri w/o Heram Manju (Bishnoi), D/o Shri
Bagadarm Resident Of Khajuwala, Bikaner.
6. Smt Munni w/o Dharmaram (Ghayal), D/o Shri Bagadarm
Village Chakada, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
7. Smt Lixma w/o Banwarilal Bishnoi, D/o Shri Bagadarm
Village Salunda, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner
8. Smt Sharada w/o Bhoopram Manda (Bishnoi), D/o Shri
Bagadarm, Resident Of Rasisar, Tehsil Nokha, District
Bikaner.
9. Smt Rameshwari w/o Shri Omprakash Bishnoi, D/o Shri
Bagadarm Resident Of Jambheshwar Chowk Nokha,
District Bikaner.
10. The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Modern Market,
Bikaner.
11. The Branch Manager, Reliance Mutual Fund Ltd., 1st Floor,
Upper Side Corporation Bank, Modern Market, Bikaner.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 05/04/2026 at 02:57:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/04/2026 at 08:35:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15112] (2 of 4) [CR-211/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia
Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit for
Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
02/04/2026
1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of
order dated 03.10.2025 passed by Additional District Judge No.6,
Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') in Civil
Original Case No.182/2020 (CIS No.2891/2014) whereby
application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d), CPC as filed on behalf of
defendant Nos.1 to 4, stood rejected.
2. The first ground raised by the defendants was that an oral
partition had already been entered into between the parties on
22.01.1985 and in terms of the said oral partition, partition deed
dated 24.10.2008 was executed. The plaintiff even acted upon the
said deed and sold out his share. The plaintiff having acted upon
the partition deed, he could not have maintained the present suit
for partition, the property already having been partitioned.
3. Secondly, it was averred that the oral partition having taken
place in the year 1985, the present suit filed in the year 2020 was
clearly barred by limitation.
4. Thirdly, no pleading to the effect that some cause of action
accrued to the plaintiff was made in the plaint and hence, the
plaint deserved to be rejected in absence of any cause of action.
5. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the application,
observed that the Court is required only to consider the pleadings
(Uploaded on 05/04/2026 at 02:57:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15112] (3 of 4) [CR-211/2025]
as made in the plaint while deciding application under Order 7
Rule 11, CPC. As per the averments of the plaintiff, he was not
aware of alleged partition deed dated 24.10.2008 and came to
know about the same in November 2008 only. Soon after, he
requested the Panchas of the Society for settlement but the same
having been refused and the defendants having refused to get the
property partitioned, the suit in question was filed. Therefore, it
could not be held that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff.
6. So far as alleged partition deed dated 24.10.2008 is
concerned, the Court observed that as per the plaintiff, he was
not a signatory to the said document and the effect of his mother
being a signatory to the said document could be seen only while
deciding the issue on the said aspect. The same definitely could
not have been decided on application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
7. So far as the ground of limitation is concerned, the Court
observed that as per the averments, the cause of action accrued
to the plaintiff in the year 2008 and hence, prima facie, the suit
could not be said to be barred by limitation. Further, even if a
dispute was raised qua the same, the same being a mixed
question of law and fact, could be decided only after the evidence
been led qua the same.
8. After hearing the Counsel and perusing the record, this Court
is in consonance with the findings as recorded by the learned Trial
Court.
9. So far as the averment made by the defendants to the effect
that the plaintiff was aware of partition deed dated 24.10.2008
and even acted upon the same in so far as he sold out his share in
pursuance to the same is concerned, as is the settled position of
(Uploaded on 05/04/2026 at 02:57:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15112] (4 of 4) [CR-211/2025]
law, the document as relied upon by the defendants cannot be
taken into consideration while deciding the application under
Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
10. No case for interference in the order impugned is made out
and the revision petition is hence, dismissed.
11. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
16-manila/-
(Uploaded on 05/04/2026 at 02:57:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
