1. Suit for cancellation of sale deeds and declaration; amendment added relief to declare regularization null and void; defendants sought rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 632
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
Smt. Rajrani, W/o. Shri Bhupendra Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Ajit Singh, Son of Shri Onad Singh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 336 of 2025
Decided On : 16-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Anukram Singh, Ms. Nisha Rohilla, Ms. Deepika.
For the Respondents: Mr. J.K. Moolchandani, Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Anukram Singh, Ms. Nisha Rohilla, Ms. Deepika.
For the Respondents: Mr. J.K. Moolchandani, Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar.
A plaint cannot be rejected in parts under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Adding a new relief via amendment does not automatically render a suit barred by law, particularly when similar objections have already been adjudicated and dismissed by the court.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Rejection of Plaint - Suit for cancellation of sale deeds, declaration and permanent injunction - Addition of new relief through amendment of plaint - Petitioner contended that the new relief is barred by law as similar remedies were sought in Revenue Court - It is trite law that a plaint cannot be rejected in parts - Mere addition of additional relief by way of amendment does not necessarily render the plaint barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) (Para 12).
(B) Revision Petition - Scope - Interference by the Court is warranted only if the order of the Trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for cancellation of registered sale deeds, declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended to include a relief declaring a certain regularization null and void. The defendants subsequently filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the newly added relief was barred by law. The Trial Court rejected the application, noting that multiple similar applications had been previously dismissed on frivolous grounds.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the addition of a relief through amendment does not automatically bar the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Furthermore, since a plaint cannot be rejected in part and prior similar applications had been rejected and subsequently affirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench, the Trial Court's order was well-reasoned and lacked any jurisdictional error.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC following the amendment of the plaint to include additional relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected in part, and the mere addition of a relief via amendment does not make the suit barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, especially when similar objections have been previously adjudicated and dismissed.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Defendants argued plaint barred by law due to prior revenue court remedies; plaintiffs contended application frivolous and previously rejected. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 )
3. Plaint cannot be rejected in parts; additional relief by amendment does not render plaint barred; previous similar applications rejected and affirmed. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Order 7 Rule 11(d) requires plaint as whole to be barred; partial relief or added amendment not sufficient ground for rejection. (Para 12 )
5. Revision petition dismissed; trial court order rejecting application upheld; no jurisdictional error or infirmity found. (Para 14 )
6. Can a plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC if only an additional relief is barred by law?
No. The plaint must be barred as a whole; an additional relief added by amendment does not make the entire plaint barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d). (Para 12 )
7. Does the previous rejection of similar applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC bar filing a fresh application on similar grounds?
Yes, repeated filing of similar applications on frivolous grounds is discouraged; prior rejections are relevant and can be considered. (Para 6 , 12 )
Order :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, assailing the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Civil Suit No.08/2018 titled 'Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Rajrani & Ors.', whereby the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioners, wherein the plaintiff prayed for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.01.2005 and 22.08.2005 executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and registered sale deed dated 24.05.2006 executed in favour of petitioner/defendant No.2.
3. During pendency of the said civil suit, an application for amendment of plaint has been filed by the plaintiff and the same has been allowed, wherein a new relief for declaring the regularization dated 24.09.1982 in favour of late Shri Ram Singh as null and void has been added.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC dated 22.01.2024 and contended that the relief claimed in prayer Clause in para No. 24 ([k] [k) of the plaint is barred by law, as the plaintiff has taken similar remedies before the learned Revenue Court. Therefore, the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent may be rejected as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, being barred by law.
5. The said application was contested by the plaintiff while stating that the present application has been filed merely to delay the disposal of the suit. It has been further submitted that two previous applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC have been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2024 and 10.03.2025. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties, and the pleas so raised, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application holding thereby that the defendant has previously filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC which have been rejected vide order dated 12.07.2019, 28.02.2023 and 27.04.2023, respectively, which clearly demonstrates that the defendant has repeatedly raised some what similar objections on frivolous grounds.
7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the previous two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC relate to different relief sought in the plaint and the present application pertains to relief in para No. 24 ([k] [k), therefore, the earlier rejection has no material bearing in rejection of the present application.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that the learned Court below has passed a reasoned order, after considering the facts and details, more particularly, rejection of similar applications filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC with cost, which has been duly confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the suit has been filed for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.01.2005 and 22.08.2005 executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1, as well as the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2006 executed in favour of petitioner/defendant No.2 and during the pendency of said suit, by way of an amendment application another relief has been added in the prayer clause of the para No.24 ([k] [k) of the plaint for declaring the regularization dated 24.09.1982 to be null and void.
12. From the averments of the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint is barred by law in terms of the provision of Order 7
