[2026:RJ-JD:13348]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 96/2026

1. Vikram S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Dhal, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Balotra

2. Smt. Nirmala W/o Shri Mewa Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Kalawa, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Balotra.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Buddha S/o Shri Sava, Resident Of Sambhra At Present Near Gemnagaji, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Balotra

2. Babu S/o Shri Sava, Resident Of Sambhra At Present Bheel Basti, Khed, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Balotra (Deceased)

3. Mewa Ram S/o Shri Durga Ram, Resident Of Kalawa, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Balotra

4. Sub Registrar, Pachpadara, District Balotra.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 17.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Trial Court’) in Civil Original Suit No. 27/2024 (CIS No. 10/24) whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant No.1, stood rejected.

2. Vide the application, three grounds were raised by the defendant; first, no cause of action arose to the plaintiffs as the power of attorney which was pleaded to be forged, in the present suit, was relied upon by the plaintiffs themselves in the revenue suit. Second, the land in question was an agricultural land and hence, the jurisdiction to pass a decree for declaration lies with the Revenue Court only. Third, the process in terms of Order 7 Rule 9 and Order 5, CPC while service of notice on the defendant, was not followed.

3. However, counsel for the petitioners raised one more ground before this Court to the effect that the plaintiffs were not the recorded Khatedars of the land in question and hence, were required to get their rights declared by the Revenue Court first.

4. Heard the Counsel. Perused the Record.

5. So far as the ground raised by the counsel before this Court is concerned, evidently, the same was not even averred in the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Further, Para 2 of the plaint specifically comprise of a plea to the effect that the plaintiffs are the recorded khatedars of the land in question.

6. As is the settled position of law, the Court is required only to go through the averments made in the plaint while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Therefore, the ground raised by the counsel cannot be entertained.

7. So far as the ground of the suit being not maintainable before a Civil Court because of the land in question being an agricultural land is concerned, evidently the primarily relief prayed for in the suit is cancellation of sale deed and declaration is a secondary relief. Further as observed above, the plaintiffs have come up with a plea that they are recorded khatedars of the land in question. In that view, the plaintiffs definitely did not require any declaration in their favour. Howsoever, if the plea that the plaintiffs are the recorded khatedars, is found to be incorrect subsequently, the defendant would definitely be at liberty to take appropriate remedy at that point of time. By all means, at this stage, the plaint cannot be rejected on the said ground.

8. So far as the ground of cause of action having not arisen to the plaintiffs is concerned, a perusal of Para 5 of the plaint reflects that a specific plea to said effect has been raised by the plaintiffs. Whether the said plea is factually correct or not, cannot be decided at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. The same definitely is a matter to be decided after the evidence been led qua the same.

9. The next ground pertaining to the non-following of the procedure while serving the defendants, is not even a ground assigned for rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

10. In view of the above observations, no ground for interference in the order impugned is made