[2025:RJ-JD:42064]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 15/2022 Jugal Kishore S/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gautam Sales Agency Sadar Baazar, Panchariya Market, Nokha, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus Radheyshyam S/o Late Sh. Gopikishan Panchariya, R/o Panchariyon Ka Chowk, Nokha Presently Residing At D-28 Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/09/2025

1. The instant revision petiton has been preferred giving challenge to the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learend Additional District Judge No.4, Bikaner in Civil Suit No.31/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitoner under Order 7 Rule

11 of the CPC has been rejected.

2. Bereft of unnecessry details, facts essential for disposal of the instant revision petiton are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit for cancellation of will dated 08.06.2014 with some ancillary reliefs. The petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC mainly on the grounds that:

(A) Before filing of the suit for specific performance of contract, the property had been sold to one Pawan Kumar and since he was not impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, the suit be dismissed on this count alone.

(B) The other ground was with regard to deficiency of court fees urging that instead of filing a suit for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of Pawan Kumar, the plaintiff cleverly chose to file a suit for cancellation of will dated 08.06.2014 and paid deficit court fee.

(C) The third ground was that the suit was barred by law because as per Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, the limitation for filing a suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract would be 3 years.

Discussing all the groudns and the objections raised by the petitoner, the learned trial court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, this revision petition.

3. After arguing the matter to some extent, learned counsel would contend that the objections raised in this petiton and in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, shall be kept reserved for the petitioner during the suit proceedings and he may be given libety to agitate the same before the trial court at appropriate stage. It is prayed that specific issues may be framed in the suit with regard to the objections above.

4. The prayer seems genuine. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is disposed of with a direction that if the objections as raised in this petition and through the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are specifically pleaded in the written statement, then the learned trial court shall frame separate issues on all the objections raised and nonetheless it is expected that as per the mandate of Order 14 Rule 2 and Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC, the learned trial court shall make separate adjudication of each issue while deciding the suit. The trial court shall not be influenced by the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer through his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The stay application is also disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J

7-Pramod/-