Order

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner assailing the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 06/2026 titled as 'Girdhari Lal Mankani & Ors. Vs M/s Maya Holiday Resorts Private Limited & Ors.' whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction based on an oral contract and in the plaint it has been averred that vide oral agreement dated 30.06.2024, the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.16,00,00,000/-, and it was averred that a total of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rs.4,00,00,000/- in cash and Rs.1,00,00,000/- through M/s Ganesh Builders and Construction Co.) has been paid to the defendants by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further averred in the plaint that the defendants refused performance of the oral agreement dated 30.06.2024, and while asserting the cause of action in Paragraph No. 13 of the plaint, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs:

"d- ;g fd okn ckcr lafonk dh fof'k"V vuqikyuk cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k fMdzh fd;k tkos fd okn i= dh en la[;k 1 eas of.kZr d`f"k Hkwfe [kkr la[;k u;k 141 iqjkuk 147 [kljk uEcj 210 jdck 1-3805 gSDVs;j fLFkr jktLo xkao Bhdfj;k iVokj gYdk Bhdfj;k Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd {ks= Bhdfj;k rglhy lkaxnusj ftyk t;iqj jkt- dk ekSf[kd bdjkjukek fnukafdr 30@6@2024 dh ikyuk esa 'ks"k izfrQy jkf'k izkIr dj izfroknh dze 1 rk 2 ls oknh ds gd esa fodz; i= fu"ikfnr djok;k tkos rFkk izfroknh dze 1 rk 2 }kjk fodz; i= fu"ikfnr ugha djokus dh lwjr esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk oknh ds gd esa fodz; i= fu"ikfnr djok;k tkdj ekSds ij okLrfod HkkSfrd dCtk lqiqnZ djok;k tkos rFkk fdlh Hkh rduhdh dkj.k ls lafonk dh fof'k"V vuqikyuk laHko ugha gksus dh lwjr esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; oSdfYid vuqrks"k ds :i eas oknh dks izfroknh dze 1 rk 2 ls vfxze izkIr jkf'k 50000000@& v{kjs ikap djksM :i;s nkok nk;jh ls e; C;kt fnyok, tkosA [k- ;g fd okn cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknh la[;k ,d o nks dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn fd;k tkos fd okn i= dh en la[;k 1 eas of.kZr oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe [kkrk la[;k u;k 141 iqjkuk 147 [kljk uEcj 210 jdck 1-3805 gSDVs;j fLFkr jktLo xkao Bhdfj;k iVokj gYdk Bhdfj;k Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd {ks= Bhdfj;k rglhy lkaxnusj ftyk t;iqj jkt0 dks izfroknh dze 1 rk 2 ekSf[kd bdjkjukek fnukafdr 30@6@2024 ds foijhr fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vkoklh; dkykuh fodflr ugha djs Hkwfe dh fdLe esa ifjorZu ugha djs fdlh Hkh O;fDr ;k laLFkk dks fdlh Hkh vU; izdkj ls cspku vUrj.k ugha djs mDr d`R; izfroknh dze 1 rk 2 u rks Lo;a djs u gh vius ,stsUV losZUV fgrc)O;fDr vkfn ls djok,A x- ;g fd [kpkZ okn oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tkosA ?k- ;g fd vU; vuqrks"k tks oknh ds gd esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s fnyok;s tkosA"

3. After service in the suit, the defendant-petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The same was contested by the plaintiff by filing a reply to the same.

4. After hearing arguments of the respective parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC vide order dated 20.02.2026.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2026, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred by not considering the fact that no valid cause of action has been set out in the plaint as required under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC. He further submits that the alleged payment of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in cash is contrary to the provision of Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, it is reflected that the averments made in the plaint are incorrect. He further submits that prior to filing of the suit, no legal notice was given to the petitioner and that the conduct of the plaintiff