HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 76/2022

1.

Smt. Pooja Khandelwal W/o Late Shri Arun Khandelwal.,

Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 14A, Jda Colony,

Sector-15, Near Siddharth Public School, Jhotwara Jaipur.

2.

Kostav Khandelwal S/o Late Arun Khandelwal, Aged About

6 Years, Minor Through His Mother And Natural Guardian

Smt. Pooja Khandelwal. R/o Plot No. 14A, Jda Colony,

Sector-15, Near Siddharth Public School, Jhotwara Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Suresh Chand Gupta S/o Shri Vijaynarayan Gupta, R/o

34, Rajnagar Colony, Near Jain Mandir, Bazaria,

Sawaimdhopur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Smt.

Juli Khandelwal W/o Shri Amit Khandelwal R/o 34,

Rajnagar Colony, Near Jain Mandir, Bazaria,

Sawaimadhopur.

2.

Smt. Ashalata Gupta W/o Shri Suresh Chand Gupta, R/o

34, Rajnagar Colony, Near Jain Mandir, Bazaria,

Sawaimdhopur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Smt.

Juli Khandelwal W/o Shri Amit Khandelwal R/o 34,

Rajnagar Colony, Near Jain Mandir, Bazaria,

Sawaimadhopur.

3.

Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Registration Stamps,

Jaipur Second.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Hem Singh

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Amit Jindal with

Mr. Ashindra Gautam

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

30/06/2022

1.

With the consent of both parties, arguments have been

heard on merits of revision petition.

(2 of 6)

[CR-76/2022]

2.

Petitioners-defendants have filed this revision petition,

involving the jurisdiction of Section 115 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, assailing the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by

Additional District No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan II in Civil Suit

No.203/2021 whereby his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC,

has been dismissed.

3.

It appears from record that respondents-plaintiffs have filed

a civil suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction on

01.06.2021, alleging inter alia that suit property was purchased in

the name of their son- Arun Khandelwal through registered sale

deed dated 22.06.2011. However, the sale consideration was paid

by plaintiffs. It has been averred that their son has entered into

marriage with petitioner-defendant No.1 Smt. Pooja Khandelwal in

the year 2012. Petitioner defendant No.2 is son of petitioner-

defendant No.1. Plaintiffs have averred that their son Arun

Khandelwal passed away on 24.04.2021 and thereafter his wife

and son (defendants) did not allow plaintiffs to enter in the

property in question and dispossess the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs issued

notice dated 28.05.2021, thereafter, instituted the present suit for

possession claiming their ownership.

4.

Petitioners defendants moved an application under Order 7

Rule 11 raising an objection that the suit is barred by limitation as

the property was purchased by husband and father of defendants

vide sale deed dated 22.06.2011 and plaintiffs have filed the

present suit after expiry of 10 years on 01.06.2021 whereas suit

to challenge the sale deed could have been instituted within a

period of three years only. That apart, plaintiffs have no locus

standi to institute the suit as well as the suit is barred by

provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act,

(3 of 6)

[CR-76/2022]

1988 (hereinafter "the Act of 1988"). The objection of insufficiency

of Court fees was also raised.

5.

Respondent-plaintiffs submitted reply to the application and

contended that as per the averment of plaint suit is well within

limitation and not barred by any law.

6.

The trial Court having heard counsel for both parties and on

perusal of plaint, observed that on perusal of pleadings of plaint,

same does not appear to be barred by limitation and is not liable

to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, however, objections raised

by defendants regarding limitation, right to institute the suit and

claim is hit under the provisions of