Order

1. The present regular first appeal has been filed against order dated 11.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter referred as ‘the Trial Court’) in Civil Original Suit No.05/2022 whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3, stood allowed. As a consequence, the suit for cancellation of sale deed as filed by the plaintiff, stood dismissed.

2. Vide order dated 11.02.2026, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to hold that the suit in question for cancellation of sale deed was not maintainable before a Civil Court without the plaintiff having got a declaration in his favour by a Revenue Court.

3. The Court observed that the plaintiff was not a recorded ‘Khatedar’ of the land in question and hence, he was under an obligation to get his rights in the agricultural land in question declared by a Competent Court and then only he could have filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit in question was for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the alleged Power of Attorney on the strength of which defendant No.1 sold out the property in question to two purchasers, was a forged one.

5. Counsel submits that defendant No.1 Gordhan Ram was in fact the lawyer of the plaintiff and he misused his authority and fraudulently got the power of attorney prepared in his favour and proceeded on to execute two sale deeds in favour of one Laxman Singh and his own son, Vishnu Prakash.

6. Counsel submits that it is the settled position of law that when a sale deed is prayed to be cancelled on the ground of fraud, it is only the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to entertain the same.

7. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon a Co- ordinate Bench judgment of this Court inHasti Cement Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur & Anr. vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors.; 2018 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 421.

8. Per contra Counsel for the respondents, while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment inRaj Narain Sarin vs. Laxmi Devi; (2002) 10 SCC 501 and the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench inJagan Singh vs. Chotey Lal; 1973 RLW 674 submitted that the suit in question was clearly barred by limitation and further the plaintiff failed to disclose any cause of action. Therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

9. Heard the counsels. Perused the Record.

10. So far as the ground raised by counsel for the respondents to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation and further that the plaintiff did not disclose any cause of action is concerned, evidently, the same were not the grounds raised by the defendants in application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

11. The only ground raised in the application was that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the judgments as relied upon by counsel for the respondents are of no avail, those being on points of law which are not even in issue in the present matter.

12. Before proceeding on to adjudicate the issue whether the suit in question was maintainable before a Civil Court or not, this Court is constrained at this stage itself to observe that the learned Trial Court erroneously recorded findings in the order impugned on basis of the defence as raised by the defendants and the documents as relied upon by them. The same definitely could not have been done by the learned Trial Court while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. It is the basic principle of law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the Court is required to consider only the avements made in the plaint and the defence as raised by the defendants or the documents as relied upon by the defendants cannot be taken into consideration at that stage. By all means, the said documents or the pleas raised by the defendants cannot be a g