[2026:RJ-JP:10186]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2026 Raju Bairwa S/o Shri Narayan Bairwa, Resident Of Gram Panwaliya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Baid Finserv Limited, (Purv Me Baid Lising And Finance Company Limited) Office Baid House, Second Manjil, 1, Tara Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Through Adhikrit Pratinidhi Shri Mahendra Kumar Baid.

2. Daulatram Bairwa S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Bairwa, R/o 40, Ramdev Ka Mandir, Nevta, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur-303905.

3. Up Panjiyak Mohadaya, Up Panjiyak Office Bagru District Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Agrawal, Mr. Raj Kumar Tongawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bansiwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

10/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the impugned order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan - II, Jaipur, in the Civil Suit No.286/2025 (3270/25) titled as 'Baid Finserv Limited Vs. Daulatram Bairwa & Ors.', whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 01.03.2023 executed by the defendant/respondent- Daulatram Bairwa in favour of the defendant/petitioner. It was stated in the plaint that the defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa mortgaged the suit land to secure a loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the plaintiff/respondent - Company. It was further stated that, during subsistence of the mortgage deed, the defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa ailenated the suit property to the defendant/petitioner vide sale deed dated 01.03.2023, which is in violation law. Therefore, prayed for declaration and cancellation of the said sale deed.

3. After service, the defendant/petitioner appeared in the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, stating that the present suit is barred by law under Sections 42-B and 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was further stated that since the suit land is an agricultural land, the suit for cancellation of the sale deed of agricultural land is not maintainable in the civil court in terms of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

4. The plaintiff/respondents filed reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, denying the averments pleaded in the said application and thus, prayed for rejection of the application.

5. After considering the averments of the plaint, pleas raised in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and reply thereto, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 16.10.2025, rejected the said application.

6. Being aggrieved of which, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He further submits that the learned Court below overlooked the fact that the suit is barred by law in terms of Section 42-B and 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He therefore prays that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 may be quashed and set aside; the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be allowed; and the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent may be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the suit land was initially mortgaged by defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa in the year 2017. During the subsistence of that mortgage, defendant/respondent - Daulatram Bairwa sold the suit property to the present petitioner vide sale deed dated 01.03.2023. Since the sale deed was executed in clear violation of the mortgage deed, the suit fo