HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 116/2026

1. M/s Maya Holiday Resorts Private Limited having Registered office at F-63, Kalidas Marg, Banipark, Jaipur and having other office at Flat No. 303, Kalp Vriksha Apartment, Bihari Marg, Banipark. Jaipur, Rajasthan through Director Shankar Lal Sadhwani

2. Shankar Lal Sadhwani son of Shri Prahalad Rai Sadhwani, aged 77 years, Director M/s Maya Holiday Resorts Private Limited presently residing at Flat No. 303, Kalp Vriksha Apartment, Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. Girdhari Lal Mankani son of Shri Vaadhumal, aged 56 years, resident of House no. A-81, Monika Vihar Second, Mangyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur

2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

3. Sub-Registrar, Bagru, Teshil Sanganer, District Jaipur

4. State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Jaipur, office Jaipur Collectorate, Banipark, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok mishra, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate Mr. Kiran Parihar, Advocate For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

10/03/2026

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 gSDV;s j fLFkr jktLo xkao Bhdfj;k iVokj gYdk Bhdfj;k Hkw vfHky[s k fujh{kd {k=s Bhdfj;k rglhy lkaxkusj 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 ljw r 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 l s 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"k/s kkKk fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknh la[;k ,d o nks dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"k/s 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 gSDV;s j fLFkr jktLo xkao Bhdfj;k iVokj gYdk Bhdfj;k Hkw vfHky[s k fujh{kd {k=s Bhdfj;k rglhy lkaxkusj 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 ,ts Us V loZUs V fgrc)

O;fDr vkfn ls djok,A x- ;g fd [kpkZ okn oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tkoAs ?k- ;g fd vU;