Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 606 (RAJ)

Rasul Khan v. Gabruddin

2014-03-03

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The petitioners-defendants have filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 14.2.13 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 287/11, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. 2. The respondent No. 1 to 7-plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking declaration to the effect that the registered sale-deed dated 29.7.11 executed by the defendant No. 3 In favour of the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 and the unregistered power of attorney dated 26.12.07 executed by the defendant No. 1 In favour of the defendant No. 3 be declared null and void and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the 6/7th share In the lands in question. The respondents-plaintiffs have also sought permanent injunction and for possession of their 6/7th share in the lands in question. In the said suit the present petitioners and the other respondents-defendants had filed the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the court did not have the jurisdiction and that no cause of action to file suit had arisen against the defendants. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore for the petitioners submitted that the earlier suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking declaration of their Khatedari rights was dismissed by the revenue court and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff seeking similar reliefs was not maintainable. He also submitted that no cause of action has arisen for the respondents-plaintiffs to file the suit and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. 4. However, the learned senior counsel Mr. R.K. Mathur for the respondents-plaintiffs has supported the impugned order passed by the trial court and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order, as also the copy of the plaint on the record, it transpires that the suit has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking declaration and permanent injunction as stated hereinabove. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order, as also the copy of the plaint on the record, it transpires that the suit has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking declaration and permanent injunction as stated hereinabove. It is settled legal position that the revenue court would not have jurisdiction to declare the sale-deed or the power of attorney as null and void allegedly executed by exercising fraud. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out as to under which law the present suit is barred. The trial court having passed the order after considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, this court does not find any illegality in the said order. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Revision Dismissed.