[2026:RJ-JP:11517]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 94/2026

1. Smt. Mamta Devi Bhatta W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Bhatta, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Brahmano Ka Mohalla, Village Bagwara, Tehsil Aamer, District-Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Smt. Soni Devi W/o Shri Rameshwar Mali, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Khatyali Dhani, Village Khora Shyamdas, District-Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Lal Chand Sharma S/o Shri Prabhati Lal, Resident Of Village Bagwara, Tehsil Aamer, District-Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus Devi Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Sewapura, Tehsil Aamer, District-Jaipur.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma with Ms. Alenka Sharma, Ms. Nandini Verma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

18/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, assailing the impugned order dated 28.01.2026, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No.99/2025, titled as 'Devi Singh Vs. Smt. Mamta Devi Bhatta & Ors.', whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule

11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil revision petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 18.12.2025, seeking the following reliefs: "¼d½ ;g fd oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k fMdzh fd;k tkdj fodz;&i= fnukafdr 12-07-2021 dks oknh ds gd&vf/kdkj ds eqdkcys 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh gS] ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos rFkk ;fn fdlh dkj.ko'k fodz;&i= fujLr fd;k tkuk laHko uk gks rks fodYi esa fodz;&i=

fnukafdr 12-07-2021 ds vuqlkj fodz; izfrQy jkf'k 12 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh C;kt nj ls oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku djsaA ¼[k½ ;g fd okn oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn fd;k tkos fd izfroknh la[;k&1 o 2 mDr Hkwfe dks fdlh Hkh vU; dks fdlh Hkh ek/;e ls gLrkUrfjr uk djsa] uk gh mDr Hkwfe dks Hkkfjr djs ,oa uk gh fdlh r`rh; i{k dk fgr l`ftr djsaA oknh izfroknhx.k dks bl vk'k; dh fu"ks/kkKk ls Hkh ikcUn djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd oknh dh mDr Hkwfe ds 'kkafriwoZd mi;ksx&miHkksx esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk O;o/kku uk rks Lo;a mRiUu djsa uk fdlh vU; ls djkosA oknh dks mDr Hkwfe ij ls voS/k :i ls csn[ky djus dk iz;kl uk djs] uk izfroknhx.k ,slk Lo;a djsa uk gh fdlh vU; ls djkosaA ¼[k½ ;g fd [kpkZ eqdnek izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tkosA ¼x½ ;g fd vU; vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; oknh ds fgr esa mfpr le>s vrk Qjek;k tkosA"

3. In the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent has averred that the sale deed dated 12.07.2021 was executed fraudulently without payment of the sale consideration on a false pretext, and that the possession of the suit property was never handed over to the defendants/petitioners.

4. Upon service in the suit, the defendants/petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and in the said application, the petitioners raised two grounds: (i) that the entire sale consideration had been paid prior to the filing of the suit, as evidenced by an RTGS dated 20.06.2025, and thus the suit was filed without any cause of action; (ii) the relief seeking payment of sale consideration does not survive and thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

5. The petitioners' application was contested by the plaintiff vide reply dated 28.01.2026, wherein it was submitted that the grounds raised in the said application, do not fall within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, that a cause of action has been duly set out in the plaint, and that the questions raised by the petitioners are mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be looked at while consideration an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

6. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, while observing that the issues raised by the petiti