[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Razzaq Mohammad vs Shabbir Mohammad Mansuri on 15 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 116/2026
1. Razzaq Mohammad S/o Late Shri Haji Suleman Ji, Aged
About 60 Years, Resident Of Bhupalsagar, Tehsil
Bhupalsagar, District Chittorgarh, Present Address 192 C,
Gandhi Nagar, Sector No. 02, Chittorgarh, Tehsil And
District Chittorgarh,rajasthan.
2. Saida Begum W/o Razzaq Monammad Ji, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of Bhupalsagar, Tehsil
Bhupalsagar,District Chittorgarh, Present Address 192C,
Gandhi Nagar, Sector No. 02, Chittorgarh,Tehsil And
District Chittorgarh Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Shabbir Mohammad Mansuri S/o Late Shri Haji Suleman
Ji, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Bnupaisagar,Tehsil
Bhupalsagar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
2. Ulfatnisha W/o Shabbir Mohammad, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Bhupalsagar, Tehsil Bhupalsagar, Dist.
Chittorgarh,Rajasthan.
3. The Sub Registrar, Bhupalsagar, Tehsil Bhupalsagar,
District Chittorgarh,Rajasthan
4. The Land Revenue Officer /Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhupalsagar,
Distric Chittorgarh Rajasthan.
5. The O.K. (Revenue Inspector), O.K. Office And Tehsil
Bhupalsagar District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
6. The L.R.C. (Computer) Revenue Officer, Bhupalsagar,
Tehsil Bhupalsagar, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan
7. The Patwari, Patwar Halka Bhupalsagar And Tehsil
Bhupalsagar, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan.
8. The Sarpanch, Gram Pancnayat Bhupalsagar,Tehsil
Bhupalsagar, District Chittorgarh,rajasthan.
9. The Gram Vikas Adhikari (Secretary), Gram Panchayat
Bhupalsagar, Tehsil Bhupalsagar,District Chittorgarh
Rajasthan
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 08:28:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 16/04/2026 at 08:53:49 PM)
(2 of 4) [CR-116/2026]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
15/04/2026
1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of
order dated 29.11.2025 passed by Additional District Judge,
Kapsan, District Chittorgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 50/2025,
whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 (d), CPC as filed on
behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2, stood rejected.
2. Vide the application, two grounds were raised on behalf of
the defendants: firstly, notice in terms of Section 109 of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act
of 1994') was served only by plaintiff No.1 before the institution of
the suit whereas the said notice was required to be served
individually by each of the plaintiffs; secondly, no affidavit was
filed on behalf of the plaintiffs along with the application.
Therefore, the plaint deserved to be rejected.
3. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the application,
specifically observed that notice as served by plaintiff No.1 did
serve the purpose of Section 109 of Act of 1994 and hence, no
individual notice was required to be served by plaintiff No.2. So far
as the objection regarding the affidavit is concerned, the Court
observed that the same was a technical objection and stood cured
as an affidavit was subsequently filed by the plaintiffs.
4. After hearing the Counsels and perusing the order impugned,
this Court is in consonance with the findings as recorded by the
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 08:28:57 AM)
(3 of 4) [CR-116/2026]
learned Trial Court. To add to the said findings, this Court is of the
opinion that the application deserved to be rejected even on the
ground that no private party (defendant Nos.1 and 2) is entitled to
raise the ground regarding the non-service of any notice in terms
of Section 109 of Act of 1994.
5. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court, in Narayanlal
Vs. Kesar Singh; S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.207/2022
(decided on 05.10.2023) observed and held as under:
"In the specific opinion of this Court, even if the finding
as reached by the Court below is not found to be
correct, the present application under Order VII Rule
11, CPC even otherwise, was not maintainable/to be
entertained at the behest of defendant No.1 who is a
private party. It is the settled proposition of law that
the objection as to non-service of a mandatory notice
can only be raised by the party for whose benefit the
said provision exists or the party who would be
benefited by compliance of the said provision. In
Punjilal Damor and Ors. Vs. Chouhan Hari Singh
Seva Sansthan Peeth, Distt. Dungarpur and Ors.,
WLN 2019 (1) Raj.136, it has been held by the Court
as under:
"A perusal of the above would indicate that the
issue/objection in this regard can only be raised by the
parties for whose protection the provision has been
enacted either in CPC and/or in various other
provisions and as the same has no jurisdictional effect
other party to the suit cannot question the
maintainability of the suit on account of alleged non-
compliance of provisions of the CPC/Act, inasmuch as,
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 08:28:57 AM)
(4 of 4) [CR-116/2026]
the said non-compliance can always be waived by the
party for whose protection the provisions have been
enacted. However, the said aspect can only be
determined when the protected party puts in
appearance and/or file its objection and/or written
statement."
Further, in the matter of Mukesh Chandel Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision
Petition No.30/2023) decided on 01.08.2023, it has
been held by this Court as under :
"....the objection of non-service of notice has not been
taken by the Municipal Authority/Authority but by the
private defendants, hence, the same cannot be
tenable."
6. In view of the above settled position of law, application
under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in question admittedly having been
filed by the private parties, could not have been entertained and
hence rightly been rejected by the Court below. The present
revision petition is hence, dismissed.
7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
8-rahul/-
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 08:28:57 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
