[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Guruchand Nahata vs Hitendra Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:13385) on 19 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:13385]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 100/2026
Guruchand Nahata S/o Late Vriddhichand Nahata, Aged About
63 Years, R/o Setho Ki Gali Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Hitendra Kumar S/o Late Jeevanmal, R/o Setho Ki Gali
Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu At Presently 4735/11
Prakashdeep 2 Nd Ploor Dma Road Daryaganj New Delhi
2. Rajkumar S/o Late Jeevanmal, Grandsone Late
Vridhchand Nahata R/o Setho Ki Gali Town Sardarshahar
Dist Churu At Presently 4735/11 Prakashdeep 2Nd Floor
Dma Road Daryaganj New Delhi
3. Narendra S/o Late Jeevanmal, Grandsone Late
Vridhchand Nahata R/o Setho Ki Gali Town Sardarshahar
Dist Churu At Presently 4735/11 Prakashdeep 2 Nd Floor
Dma Road Daryaganj New Delhi
4. Laxmi Devi W/o Late Jeevanmal, R/o Setho Ki Gali Town
Sardarshahar Dist Churu At Presently 4735/11
Prakashdeep 2 Nd Floor Dma Road Daryaganj New Delhi
5. Sampatmal S/o Late Jeevanmal, Grandsone Late
Vridhchand Nahata R/o Setho Ki Gali Town Sardarshahar
Dist Churu At Present F 4 3Rd Floor Greater Kailash
Enclave New Delhi
6. Lila Devi W/o Late Nortanmal Nahata, R/o Setho Ki Gali
Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu At Present Flat No 5 C 5
Th Floor 25 Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata W.b.
7. Sanjay S/o Late Nortanmal Nahata, Grandson Late
Vridhchand Nahata R/o Setho Ki Gali Town Sardarshahar
Dist Churu At Present Flat No 5 C 5 Th Floor 25
Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata W.b.
8. Sarala Devi W/o Late Babulal Nahata, R/o Setho Ki Gali
Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu At Present 10 Ormenium
Street 2Nd Floor Howrah Kolkata W.b.
9. Deepak S/o Late Babulal, Grandsone Late Vridhchand
Nahata R/o Setho Ki Gali Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu
At Present 10 Ormenium Street 2Nd Floor Howrah Kolkata
W.b.
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 11:12:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:43:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13385] (2 of 4) [CR-100/2026]
10. Kantadevi W/o Shri Indrakumar Sindhi Maghlani, R/o
Sardarshahar Dist Churu Bahadur Singh Colony Town
11. Indrakumar Maghlani S/o Shri Virumal Sindhi Maghlani,
Tenant Of The Disputed Shop Address Bahadur Singh
Colony Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu (Rajya Sabha)
12. Hiranand S/o Shri Virumal Sindhi, Tenant Of The Disputed
Shop Business Address Markest Oriental Bank Wili Gali
Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu Raj.
13. Nitesh S/o Shri Subhash Jaisanasriya, Tenant Of The
Disputed Shop Business Address Main Markest Oriental
Bank Wali Gali Town Sardarshahar Dist Churu Raj.
14. Sub Registrar, Sardarshahar Tehsil Premises Town
Sardarshahar Dist Churu Raj.
15. District Registrar Churu, Collectorate Premises Churu
Rajasthaan
16. Rameshwaralal S/o Late Veidhchand, R/o Saitho Ki Gali
Town Sardarshahar Rajasthan
17. Kumari Sayer D/o Late Vridhchand, R/o Saitho Ki Gali
Town Sardarshahar Rajasthan
18. Late Shri Ratanlal S/o Late vridhchand, R/o Saitho Ki Gali
Town Sardarshahar Rajasthan At Present R/o 9A Short
Street Kolkata W.b.
19. Vijay Prakash S/o Late Shri Jeevanmal, Grandson Late
Shri Virdhchand R/o Saitho Ki Gali Town Sardarshahar
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi
Mr. Ankit Bhaskar
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
19/03/2026
1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of
order dated 06.03.2026 passed by Additional District Judge,
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 11:12:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13385] (3 of 4) [CR-100/2026]
Sardarsahar, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned
Trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No.129/2021 (01/2016) whereby
application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of
defendant No.1, stood rejected.
2. The sole ground raised by the defendant was that qua the
property in question, a suit had already been instituted earlier and
therein, it was decided that some of the properties were the self
acquired properties of late Shri Vridhichand. The said judgment
having become final, the present suit for cancellation of sale deed
qua the same property on the premise that it was an ancestral
property, could not have been maintained.
3. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the application
observed that although the judgment declaring the property in
question to be a self acquired property of Late Shri Vridichand had
attained finality, but then the present suit was filed on the basis of
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 04.08.2011. The said
MOU bore the signature of the defendant too. In that scenario,
whether the said MOU was valid/forged and could have governed
the rights of the parties, could be decided only after the issue
been framed qua the same and evidence been led by the parties.
No finding qua the MOU could definitely be recorded while
deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
4. After hearing the Counsel and perusing the order impugned
as well as the record, this Court is of the clear opinion that the
observation as made by the learned Trial Court is in total
consonance with law. What would be the effect of the earlier
judgment and its bearing on the MOU or vice versa, definitely are
the subject matters to be decided by the Court on the basis of the
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 11:12:07 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13385] (4 of 4) [CR-100/2026]
evidence led by the parties. The factual aspect, if any, definitely
cannot be gone into while deciding the application under Order 7
Rule 11, CPC and that too, which has been raised by way of a
defence.
6. No case for interference is made out and the revision petition
is hence, dismissed.
7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
18-manila/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 11:12:07 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
