[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Savitari Devi Chandak vs Narbada Devi (2026:Rj-Jd:15136) on 2 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:15136]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 117/2026
1. Savitari Devi Chandak Spouse/o Late Shri Madan Lal
Chandak, Aged About 60 Years, D/o Surajmal S/o
Nathamal, R/o Bagadi Mohala, Sewa Sadar Ke Piche,
Chhaabali Ghati, Bikaner, Raj.
2. Kanta Devi Mundra Spouse/o Janwarilal, Aged About 56
Years, D/o Surajmal S/o Nathamal, R/o Bagri Dharmsala
Ke Pichhe, Ward Number 29 Nokha Distict Bikaner
Present R/o Surat Dak Ka Pta Sanjay Mundra, Priya
Kriyashan U-68 Apra Ground Kuber Ji World Market, Sroli
(Surat) Pin Code 395010 District Surat State Gujarat.
3. Sarita Devi Ldhar Spouse/o Late Pusaraj Ldhar, Aged
About 51 Years, D/o Surajmal D/o Nathamal, R/o Ward
Number 12, Main Choki Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, Distirct
Bikaner, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Narbada Devi Spouse/o Premnarayan, R/o Chacha Neharu
School Ke Pass Ward No .11 Nokha Tehsil Nokha District
Bikaner, Raj
2. Sunil Kumar S/o Premnarayan, R/o Chacha Neharu School
Ke Pass Ward No .11 Nokha Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner.
Raj
3. Sub Registrar, Shribalaji Tehsil And District Nagour
Rajasthan.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS:
4. Bhagwati Devi Karnani Spouse/o Badri Narayan Karnani,
D/o Surajmal S/o Nathmal, R/o Village Roda, Tehsil
Nokha, District Nagour Bikaner, Rajasthan Presently
Resident At Jorat C/o Ms. Damodar Prasad Nemichand,
A.t. Road Post Chowk, Jorahat (Aasam).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaturbhuj
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:32:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:52:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15136] (2 of 3) [CR-117/2026]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
02/04/2026
1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of
order dated 20.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge No.2,
Nagaur in Civil Original Suit No.49/2025 whereby application
under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1
to 4 stood disposed of.
2. Three grounds were raised by the defendants in the said
application: Firstly, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs.
Secondly, the document i.e. the agreement to sell in question was
not properly stamped and hence, was not admissible in evidence.
Thirdly, the Court fee as paid by the plaintiffs was deficit.
3. The learned Trial Court, while deciding the application,
observed that specific pleadings qua 'cause of action' had been
averred by the plaintiffs in the plaint. So far as the document in
question not being properly stamped is concerned, the Court
observed that an application for the said purpose had already
been preferred by the plaintiffs before the Court. Therefore,
appropriate orders on the said application would be passed.
Further, the document being not admissible in evidence cannot,
even otherwise, be a ground for rejection of the plaint.
4. Regarding the Court fee, the Court accepted the ground as
raised by the defendants and directed the plaintiffs to pay the
deficit Court fee.
5. In view of the above observations and findings, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere in order impugned dated
20.02.2026 and the revision petition is hence, dismissed.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:32:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15136] (3 of 3) [CR-117/2026]
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
27-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:32:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
