ORDER : 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sriganganagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 16.02.2009. The relief was, inter-alia, claimed on the ground that Prithvi Singh, father of the plaintiffs, had no reason to transfer the joint family property and therefore, on that count the sale deed was sought to be set aside. 3. Averments were made that transfer was void and based on the said submissions and the plea raised in this regard, the petitioners filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, inter-alia, on the ground that as the plaintiffs have claimed the sale-deed as void, the suit was triable by revenue courts and under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the same was barred by law. 4. The application was contested and the trial court after hearing the parties, as already noticed hereinbefore, rejected the application. 5. The issued raised by the petitioners in the present revision petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Sandeep Charan and Others, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 137/2015, decided on 07.03.2018, wherein after taking into consideration the law on the subject, it was laid down that in a case where a plaint was filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed on account of the fact that the suit property in question was ancestral and transfer was made without any reason, basis or necessity, the transaction was only voidable and not void and, therefore, the suit was maintainable before the civil courts. 6. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. 7. Consequently, there is no substance in the revision petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.