[2026:RJ-JP:12887]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 132/2026 Raju Kumawat S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Kumawat, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Plot No. 14, Jamna Colony, Teen Dukan, Dhahar Ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner/Plaintiff/Applicant Versus

1. Smt. Kanchan Devi Kumawat W/o Shri Pushpendra Kumawat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Plot No. 14, Krishan Nagar, Jamna Colony, Teen Dukan, Dhahar Ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Narayan Lal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Niwana, Devthala, Tehsil Chomu, Jaipur-303804, Rajasthan.

----Respondents/Defendants/Non-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumawat, Ms. Neha Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamalkant Sharma with Ms. Nandini Verma, Ms. Alenka Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

27/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff - Raju Kumawat under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assailing the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No.56/2023 (57/2023), titled as 'Raju Kumawat Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi & Anr.', whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of counter claim on account of deficient Court fees, was rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the gift deed dated 24.03.2022 and consequential documents, including the registered sale deed dated 16.02.2023, declaration, and permanent injunction, before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur.

3. In the said suit, defendant/respondent No. 2, Suresh Kumar Meena, filed a counter-claim seeking a decree for possession of Plot No. 14, situated at Jamna Colony, Dhahar Ka Balaji, Teen Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, against the plaintiff/petitioner.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that the counter-claim do not disclose cause of action; had been filed with inadequate court fees, and was thus liable to be dismissed being barred by law.

5. The said application was contested by defendant/respondent No. 2, while stating that the counter-claim duly disclosed a cause of action. It was further stated that the learned Court below had not yet directed the defendant/respondent for payment of Court fees under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC, and that he would deposit the same as and when directed. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC application.

6. After considering the arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Court below, held that the counter-claim duly disclosed a cause of action and that, until the date of the impugned order, no direction had been issued by the court requiring the present defendant/respondent to pay the deficient court fees. Consequently, the ground under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC was held inapplicable. Accordingly, the application under Order 7 Rule

11 of CPC, was rejected.

7. Being aggrieved by which, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and in entertaining the counter-claim without payment of ad valorem Court fees. He further submits that the counter-claim is barred by law, and therefore prays that the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC may kindly be allowed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/defendant No. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. He submitted that the learned Court