IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rejection of plaint – Suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of insufficient Court fee – Law mandates that Plaintiff be afforded opportunity to rectify such deficiency.
(2) Agreement to sell – Unregistered agreement to sell does not and cannot by itself create or transfer any right, title, or interest in immovable property.
(3) Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Issues relating to title of immovable property fall exclusively within jurisdiction of Civil Courts and not revenue authorities.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mahadevan, J.

Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur¹[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 99/2023, the appellant / plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Appeal. By the said order, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, set aside the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

3. The facts of the case as projected by the appellant are as follows:

3.1. The appellant company claims to be the owner of the agricultural land purchased in the year 2013, comprising Khasra No.175, 175/2, 175/4, 175/5, 175/6, 175/7 admeasuring 18 bighas 15 biswas situated in Village Pal, District Jodhpur (“subject property”), and they obtained a loan of Rs.7,50,00,000/- from Respondent No.1. On 23.05.2014, the Board of Directors of the appellant company passed a resolution authorising their Managing Director Mr. Vinod Singhvi, and authorised representative Mr. Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent No.1), to sell the subject property. Pursuant to the said Board resolution, on 24.05.2014, Mr. Vinod Singhvi executed unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell in favour of Respondent No.1, concerning the subject property.

3.2. Subsequently, on 12.08.2015, the original sale deeds through which the appellant company had purchased the subject property were impounded by the Collector of Stamps for insufficient stamp duty. The appellant company challenged this action by filing a revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Collector of Stamps for re-adjudication. In the meanwhile, the appellant company handed over the original documents pertaining to the suit property to the private respondents as security for the loan obtained by them.

3.3. In April, 2022, when the appellant company approached the private respondents to settle the loan and retrieve the original documents, the respondents failed to respond. Consequently, on 24.05.2022, the Board of Directors of the appellant company passed a resolution revoking the authority granted to Respondent No.1, thereby invalidating all the actions related thereto and declaring them as non-est. Accordingly, the power of attorney was also revoked on 27.05.2022.

3.4. Despite the same, Respondent No.1 executed sale deeds dated 13.07.2022 and 14.07.2022 which were registered on 19.07.2022 in his favour and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the subject property. Based on these sale deeds, their names were also mutated in the revenue records.

3.5. Aggrieved, the appellant company instituted Original Civil Suit bearing No.122 of 2022 before the District Court, Jodhpur, against Respondent Nos.1 to 4, as well as concerned government authorities, and developer, seeking the reliefs of declaration, possession, and permanent injunction in respect of the subject property.

3.6. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, by order dated 14.07.2023. Challenging this order, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.99 of 2023 before the High Court, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 31.01.2025, thereby rejecting the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal before us.

4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are summarized as under:

4.1. The High Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is settled law that a plaint can only be rejected if it is manifestly vexatious or does not disclose any right to sue. In the present case, the cause of action concerning the sale deeds dated 13.07.2022 and 14