HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 24112019

1.

Kishan Lal S/o Late Shri Puran Chand, Aged About 69

Years, R/o Ward N;:

8, Bhim Colony, Barlabas, Rajgarh

Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar

2.

Laxmi Devi W/o Shri Hazari Lal, Aged About 56 Years,

R/o Ward No. 8, Bhim Colony, Barlabas, Rajgarh Tehsil

Rajgarh, District Alwar

3.

Hazari Lal Slog ~at$bk~hr{

~%bcrlch,and, Aged About 60

*. &A

7

' - 4

I:,

S

Years, RLo.'WardLLNo. 8, Bhim Colhy, Barlabas, Rajgarh

:

4

Tehsil ipajgarh, District Alwar

r i

-I

-*., "i,

~vvq."

----Petitione~s~Defendants

4Qt

r i

%

Versus

1.

Devraj S/o Late Shri Radhakrishan R/o Mohalla Barlabas

9,,"e,au*-

Rajgarh Tehsil Raj,garb;.Di'stri'ct Alwar

*

,-

I

I(

,I

.:-'7 ,.

.

t'

#". . di*. ..I

---Respondent-Plaintiff

.iAz:^t $ ,3& ..

":.i-r

".

2.

Ajay S/o Shpa-tp~l$alAR$d~

- $ ~ a r d &

No. 8 Bhim Colony

'X$tth

.$?. ~.$.i*;,;.&"$: "

j?:. ,,~'

Ba rla bas, ~ a j g a

X

~

A

~

~%hiehsl

da

li' Rajg

.%.a,& a'r-h,, e,

r rt6?t

'District Alwar

e~"&e~~p>Tq.".-

"" ",

p<*%,&&

. . ." \

<

b.,-s4z.,8~.(

% -*. ‘by-.

* .' ;-.:

t;,'aa..J".

= -*

----Respondents

.#'.x;'

. , * 4

z- *&I."!

?.$ , "-.""

,

"'-

"

For Petitioner(s)

: $M$

Pi

I

~ b ~ . . ~ ~ b o l ~ h a n d a n i ,

L L .:

A

Advocate

$

& 2

rs Ti

:ti g

b it

:i '

*;,T,@g'ii";

,.. -

. .

.+,~A$...A~LL-~.-.

*~+~l+w~m~-k;.$:b':

+

HON'BLE ~~~R.~JUS$TI@E~~.%A.@ASH

GUPTA

$3 ,.f -4 * - .-

1 '

.,.I

+

.;-

*;p; .

s. %?<,,:

* a * . ' (

""*p\,

i]!,.~

* ;jaEdefig

i

- 2 ~ .

LFr

" .. -

16/02/2022

-i"x*u-

-nr- .' ."* r.

r

$4 p-4j < .; tq ;

,> 1

5 s . .

1

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-

defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') against

the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Civil Suit No.11/2018,

whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC -has been rejected.

The respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the

plaintiff') filed a suit against the defendants. The defendants filed

an application under order 7 Rule '11 CPC.

After hearing the

arguments, vide order dated 23.07.2019 the Trial Court dismissed

the said application.

Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

After arguing the matter at some length, learned

counsel for the defendants seeks permission to withdraw the

revision petition. At the same time it is prayed that the Trial Court

i

be directed to frame;^

I)+ .

: ~ r . & l i . a r issue in respect of objection

,, A

% ..

raised in the app"~%ation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC-and decide the

4\y9

"4 ,

same befo:t,e,proceeding further in the matter.

,i

-

'*

., * ..

; His prayer seems to be genuine. Hence, the revision

petition is dismissed as witbd,ra~n,. However, the Trial Court is

" .

(;%.I

.h :

\"'L.

d,; ..::

directed that if the defe&@a~~$+ra~se;,th~~~~sarne

objection in their

(+

&s'**~

&&*:&g$i@A

@,

s:r-$">- .,,-.

written statement, as:ba.s~-b~e:en~tai,se2hj

:in the application under

. a..;lZ.+:,-'.,,

-

is>***->

* t~ ,*

r+

* &., !.""b

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC aFd@~@a,:p,tr:e~imina~G

-#*. ,

3~sz2,,ib

%

issue is found to have

'is

r.?* ' "

..ip;bl,ciT.:

$. z~.,.., ...

been made out under Oljder '24,4Rule.-,2 CPC, then a preliminary

r

t

P I

5 -I

p "2 " 3

issue be framed and theg'sa.mef b:e,;dedded by the Trial Court in

"h ~ b , -!

2

accordance with law, w,it$&t'ib@in'$:

ex >.x+.

influenced by its earlier order

dated 23.07.2019.

<{';,.

,,i 1:

q L '- d& .,,% ,,. u.**,>

*.- ,

*

*"~

A&.."L~ s

s

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

%2.

2.

xry+-*re

~ - w .

-..

MR/6

a

p-'~.;,i*5

a;

"

s ".