Plaints creating an illusory cause of action through clever drafting must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. Oral revocation of written instruments is ineffective, and failure to pay sale consideration does not justify cancelling a registered deed, as the remedy lies in a suit for recovery.

ORDER :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No. 68/2024 whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the application’) as filed on behalf of petitioner/defendant No.2, stood rejected.

2. The facts are that a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff Jogaram with the averment that he is the recorded khatedar of an agricultural land. As the user of the land was required to be converted to residential and the land was required to be developed, defendant No.2 Champa Devi and one Anil Kaushik entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in the Year 2012 to undertake the said proceedings. For the purpose, plaintiff signed certain stamp papers and blank papers and handed over to them. As per the agreement, the complete expenses for conversion/development were to be borne by Champa Devi & Anil Kaushik and in lieu of the same, 13 bighas out of total 27 bighas of land was to be transferred to them by the plaintiff after receiving the due consideration.

3. It was further averred that no proceedings, whatsoever, for conversion/development were undertaken by both till the year 2021 and hence, a dispute arose between the parties. When no proceedings were undertaken by them till the month of January 2022, plaintiff demanded for the return of his original documents, on which he was threatened that they have got an agreement to sell, a development agreement and two Power of Attorneys (for short ‘P/A’) in their favour and would proceed on basis of the said documents. The plaintiff therefore, in the month of January 2022, orally revoked the alleged P/A and development agreement dated 05.12.2012. However, despite the same, they did not hand over the original documents back to him.

4. In that event, vide registered notice dated 02.11.2023, the plaintiff revoked/cancelled the P/A and development agreement dated 05.12.2012. A public notice to the said effect was also got published in daily newspaper dated 07.11.2023.

5. On being served with the above notice, it was informed by Champa Devi & Anil Kaushik that by virtue of P/A dated05.12.2012, defendant No.2 had already executed a sale deed on 31.10.2023, in favour of defendant No.1 Geegaram, which was totally illegal as it was the plaintiff who was in possession of the land as a recorded khatedar, till the said date. Further, the sale deed was executed despite the P/A having been cancelled/revoked by the plaintiff and furthermore, no consideration amount was ever paid to the plaintiff. Meaning thereby, the sale deed in question was a sham document and was executed just to play a fraud upon the plaintiff.

6. With the above averments, the following reliefs were prayed for by the plaintiff:

7. An application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was filed on behalf of defendant No.2 on the following grounds:

(i) The land in question was an agricultural land and the relief for injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff was within the domain of a Revenue Court.

(ii) The plaintiff had no right to pray for cancellation of the sale deed as on the date of filing of the suit, he was not the record