Parbat Singh vs Ganeshmal (2026:Rj-Jd:13151)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4311 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Parbat Singh vs Ganeshmal (2026:Rj-Jd:13151) on 19 March, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2026:RJ-JD:13151]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 224/2025

Parbat Singh S/o Shri Jabbar Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Sonpura, Proprietor Adhunik Computer And Services, Sumerpur,
Tehsil Sumerpur, Dist Pali
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Ganeshmal S/o Shri Dunga Ji, R/o Sumerpur, Tehsil Sumerpur
Dist Pali.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Bharat Shrimali
                                Mr. Ishwar Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rajesh Parihar



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of

order dated 10.01.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Sumerpur,

District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') in

Civil Original Suit No. 02/2021 whereby application under Order 7

Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of the defendant, stood rejected.

2. The ground raised by the defendant was that the shop in

question was rented out for manufacturing purposes and hence, a

notice of six months was essential in terms of Section 106 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act

of 1882') .

3. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the application

specifically observed that the plaint no where reflected the shop in

question to be rented out for manufacturing purposes.

(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 06:37:40 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13151] (2 of 2) [CR-224/2025]

4. The finding as recorded by the learned Trial Court is in total

consonance with the averments as made in the plaint.

5. Further, as is the settled position of law, in matters under

Section 106 of the Act of 1882, the plaint itself can be termed to

be a notice {Nopany Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh;

2008 (2) SCC 728} and hence, the objection as raised by the

defendant even otherwise is of no consequence.

6. No ground 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 4-manila/-

(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 06:37:40 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)