##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:13112]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 278/2024 Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sitaram Jeevrajka, Aged About 54 Years, (Vyavsayik Pata) - Ward No. 12, Poddar Gate Ke Paas, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Ghar Ka Pata), Bagriya Pani Ki Tanki Ke Paas, Bawdi Gate, Ward No. 28,

Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

Sajjan Kumar Poddar S/o Late Sh. Ramjilal Poddar, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purushottam Lal Hissaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidyadhar Singh Jakhar

Mr. Dhanraj Bhaskar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

28/03/2026

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, in Civil Suit No. 41/2021 titled 'Sajjan Kumar Poddar Vs. Pawan Kumar', whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule

11(a) and (d) of the CPC has been rejected.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 against the defendant/petitioner, and in the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he purchased the suit property from the erstwhile landlord. Therefore, he has become the landlord of the tenanted premises, and after serving a notice of 15 days, he terminated the tenancy of the defendant/petitioner. However, the defendant/petitioner failed to vacate the tenanted premises and hand over possession to the plaintiff/respondent; therefore, the

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 12:44:32 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 04:43:41 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13112] (2 of 4) [CR-278/2024] plaintiff/respondent filed the present suit for eviction and arrears

of rent.

3. In the said suit, after service, the defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, stating inter alia that the plaint does not disclose any valid cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC. He further submitted that the present suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, in view of the bar contained under Order 23 Rule 1(4) (b), since the previous suit had been withdrawn without seeking leave as referred to in Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC, the present suit is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule

11(d) of the CPC.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent opposed the said application by filing a reply, wherein it was stated that the suit is neither barred by law nor filed without disclosing a cause of action. It was further stated that since the plaintiff/respondent had purchased the suit property, he had served a fresh notice under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and on account of a fresh cause of action, the present suit has been filed; he accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the said application filed

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

5. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 29.07.2024, rejected the said application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has

been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred in rejecting the application without appreciating

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 12:44:32 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 04:43:41 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13112] (3 of 4) [CR-278/2024] the fact that the present suit is barred in terms of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the plaint may kindly

be rejected.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Court below has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting t