JUDGMENT 1. The instant revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendants No.1 and 2, challenging the Order dated 24.03.2022 in Civil Suit No.18/2021 by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur, whereby and whereunder their application dated 26.02.2021 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of both parties, perused the impugned order and plaint as also relevant documents placed on record. 3. It appears from record that respondent No1-plaintiff Deepak Baid has instituted a civil suit for possession, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against present petitioners (who are defendants No.1 and 2), claiming his ownership rights in respect of suit property, which is in possession of defendants No.1 and 2 and shown by red colour in the map appended with plaint. Respondents No. 2 to 21 have also been impleaded as party defendants No.3 to 22 alleging that they are tenants in different portions of the suit property, commonly known as ’Gulab Niwas’ situated at M.I. Road, Jaipur. Plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he is natural son of late Sh. Himmat Singh, defendant No.1-Sanjay Baid, is his real brother and defendant No.2-Smt. Jyotsana Baid, is his natural mother. Plaintiff averred that he was adopted by Sh. Champal Lal and ownership of entire property, known as ’Gulab Niwas’ was vested in Sh. Champa Lal Ji. In Para No.2 of the plaint, it has been averred that some parts of ’Gulab Niwas’ came to Champa Lal after death of Sh. Poonam Chand in the year 1923, who happens to be natural father of Champa Lal, according to the law prevailing at that point of time in the Jaipur State. Other parts of ’Gulab Niwas’ was alleged to be purchased by Sh. Champa Lal from Jaipur State, in the year 1946, and thereafter, the Jaipur State also recognized and acknowledged the ownership of Sh. Champa lal over the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ and accorded permission for construction to him. The plaintiff averred that he was adopted by Sh. Champa Lal and his wife Smt. Nirmala Baid, according to hindu rites and later on, an adoption deed dated 06.10.1969 was executed and registered in conformity to adoption. It is averred that in the adoption deed itself, Sh. The plaintiff averred that he was adopted by Sh. Champa Lal and his wife Smt. Nirmala Baid, according to hindu rites and later on, an adoption deed dated 06.10.1969 was executed and registered in conformity to adoption. It is averred that in the adoption deed itself, Sh. Champa Lal and Smt. Nirmala Baid declared the plaintiff entitled to their all movable and immovable properties. In Para No.4 of the plaint, plaintiff has given reference of a Will dated 13.02.1969, executed by Sh. Champa Lal and an another Will dated 15.10.1973, executed by Smt. Nirmala Baid, which came in effect after their death. Thus, plaintiff claimed himself to be the sole owner of property of ’Gulba Niwas’, where he is in possession over the part of ’Gulab Niwas’. Plaintiff averred that his natural father Sh. Himmat Singh, natural mother Smt. Jyotsana Baid and brother Sanjay baid were also residing in the ’Gulab Niwas’ being family members and his natural father Sh. Himmat Singh, having his dominating position in the family, kept tenants in the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ and started to receive rent from them. In Para No.5 of the plaint, it is averred that his natural father Sh. Himmat Singh passed away on 25.07.2016. 4. Plaintiff has further averred that prior to filing the present suit, his natural mother Smt. Jyotsana Baid (defendant No.2) under influence of his brother Sanjay Baid (defendant No.1) has instituted another civil suit for possession, mandatory and prohibitory injunction against plaintiff. In that suit, it was disclosed that in relation to property of ’Gulab Niwas’, one partition suit bearing No.68/1969 titled Sanjay Baid Vs. Himmat Singh was instituted, wherein a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 04.02.1970 and a final decree for partition was passed on 29.04.1970. On the basis of final decree dated 29.04.1970, defendant No.2 alleged herself to be the owner of portion of ’Gulab Niwas’, which is in actual possession of plaintiff and alleging plaintiff as licensee in that portion, a prayer has been made to dispossess the plaintiff. Plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that, on filing that suit, plaintiff came to know about proceedings of such partition suit and passing of preliminary and final decree in that suit, therefore, plaintiff in Para No.6 of plaint, has challenged the final decree passed in the partition suit. Plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that, on filing that suit, plaintiff came to know about proceedings of such partition suit and passing of preliminary and final decree in that suit, therefore, plaintiff in Para No.6 of plaint, has challenged the final decree passed in the partition suit. Plaintiff has pleaded that the partition suit was collusive wherein a decree was passed with consent and the plaintiff-Deepak Baid was not made party in that partition suit, therefore, final decree passed in partition suit is null and void qua his ownership rights in the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ and no right conferred upon defendants No.1 and 2, on the basis of final decree in partition, which is a collusive and was obtained by fraud behind back of plaintiff. In subsequent paragraphs of plaint, plaintiff has pleaded that possession of defendants No.1 and 2 over the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ is unauthorized and they are not entitled to receive rent from tenants. It is also averred that in relation to rented shops No.53 and 54, defendant No.2 is entering into collusion with tenants and inclined to obtain the possession. Plaintiff also claimed mesne profits from defendants No.1 and 2, from the date of filing of suit till obtaining physical possession. In Para No.13, plaintiff disclosed about accrual of cause of action in the month of July 2020, when defendant No.2 instituted civil suit for possession filed by defendant No.2, against plaintiff, on the basis of the final decree dated 29.04.1970, passed in partition suit and alleging herself to be owner and plaintiff as licensee, whereas plaintiff is owner of the entire property of ’Gulab Niwas’. Thereafter, plaintiff has to file the present suit for possession against defendants No.1 and 2, rendition of accounts and mesne profits & permanent injunction. Plaintiff has valued the suit as Rs. 5 Crore for the purpose of possession, Rs.50,000/- for rendition of accounts and Rs.400/- for permanent injunction and accordingly, court fees of Rs.7,05,135/- has been paid. In prayer clause, plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession against defendants No.1 and 2 as also for mesne profits and further prayed a decree for permanent injunction against defendants No.1 and 2, not to receive rent from tenants (defendants No.3 to 21). In prayer clause, plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession against defendants No.1 and 2 as also for mesne profits and further prayed a decree for permanent injunction against defendants No.1 and 2, not to receive rent from tenants (defendants No.3 to 21). Incidentally, a decree for permanent injunction has also been prayed for against defendants No.3 to 21, not to make transaction of rent and possession of tenanted portion with defendants No.1 and 2 and to pay rent of their respective portion of rented property in the ’Gulab Niwas’, to plaintiff. 5. Defendants No.1 & 2-petitioners moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint threshold. The application has been replied and opposed by plaintiff-respondent No.1. The trial court, vide Order dated 24.03.2022, has dismissed the application. 6. Learned senior counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued that plaint instituted by respondent No.1-plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on following grounds: (I) The plaint does not disclose a cause of action for giving any right to sue by the plaintiff and plaint is barred by law of limitation. (II) The plaint is under valued and court fees paid, is insufficient. (III) The jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and decide the present plaint is barred by virtue of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. 7. Ground (I):- 7.1 In respect of non-disclosure of cause of action and limitation, learned counsel for petitioners has pointed out that it is an admitted case of plaintiff that he had been adopted by Sh. Champa Lal through registered adoption deed dated 06.10.1969. It has been pointed out that Sh. Champa Lal executed a Will dated 13.02.1969 whereunder he has relinquished his all rights and specifically mentioned having no concern or nexus with properties of his natural father Sh. Poonam Chand, as Sh. Champa Lal Ji has also gone in adoption to Sh. Milap Chand Ji. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that on the basis of this Will, later on after his death, probate proceedings were initiated and probate dated 05.01.1973 was issued and in the list of properties, property ’Gulab Niwas’ is not included. Thus it is clear that Sh. Champa Lal Ji had no concern with properties of ’Gulab Niwas’ and if had, he had relinquished his all rights through his Will. Thus it is clear that Sh. Champa Lal Ji had no concern with properties of ’Gulab Niwas’ and if had, he had relinquished his all rights through his Will. He has pointed out that the Will of Smt. Nirmala Baid dated 15.10.1973, referred in the plaint is also silent about the property of ’Gulab Niwas’. He further pointed out that the final decree, passed in the partition suit, has already attained finality way back on 29.04.1970, therefore, challenge to that decree in the present suit is beyond limitation and thus, the plaintiff neither has any right to sue for claiming his ownership rights being adopted son of Sh. Champa Lal nor any cause of action accrued to him to file present suit and further challenge to the final decree of partition is beyond limitation. He has vehemently urged that the present suit is nothing but a counter blast to the suit, filed by defendant No.2 for obtaining possession from plaintiff, on the basis of final decree dated 29.04.1970, passed in her favour in the partition suit bearing No.68/1969. The copy of previously instituted suit by defendant No.2 against plaintiff, has been placed on record and presently the said suit bearing No.32/2020, titled Smt. Jyotsana Baid Vs. Deepak Baid is said to be pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur. In that previous suit, defendant No.2 has asked for possession of a part of ’Gulab Niwas’, which is in possession of plaintiff, alleging herself to be owner and the plaintiff as her licensee. 7.2 This Court is of considered opinion that at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, pleadings of plaint are germane for consideration by the Court and at the most documents referred in the plaint may also be looked into. The objection of defendants No.1 and 2, if travels beyond pleadings of paint and documents referred thereto, is wholly immaterial to be considered at this stage though, the same may be an available defence to defendants No.1 and 2, to be taken in the written statement for consideration during course of trial of the suit on merits. The objection of defendants No.1 and 2, if travels beyond pleadings of paint and documents referred thereto, is wholly immaterial to be considered at this stage though, the same may be an available defence to defendants No.1 and 2, to be taken in the written statement for consideration during course of trial of the suit on merits. In order to analyze the right of sue whether accrue to plaintiff or not and whether plaint discloses a cause of action for the plaintiff, giving a right to sue or not, a meaningful reading of pleadings of plaint as a whole is required. This principle of law is well settled, as recently has been expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India [ (2020) 17 SCC 260 ], after considering catena of previous judgments of hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. 7.3 In pleadings of plaint, plaintiff has clearly pleaded for having his ownership rights over the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ and has also challenged proceedings of partition suit, wherein admittedly plaintiff is not party and plaintiff has alleged the partition suit as collusive and has alleged that the decree therein has suffer from fraud and collusion. Though, reference of Wills of Champa Lal and Smt. Nirmala Baid has been given in the plaint, yet at this stage the evidential value of Wills is not required to be examined. In the bottom of will, it is indicated that Champa Lal, executed will at Gulab Niwas showing it his own house. Objections that in the Will, Sh. Champa Lal has written having no concern or nexus with properties of Sh. Poonam Chand or has relinquished his all rights or in the list appended with the probate dated 05.01.1973, issued on the basis of said Will, the property ’Gulab Niwas’ is not included, are all subject matters of the defence which may be available to defendants No.1 and 2, to contest the present suit. All these issues may not be adjudicated at this stage, without recording evidence of parties. All these issues may not be adjudicated at this stage, without recording evidence of parties. 7.4 As far as limitation is concerned, plaintiff has clearly mentioned in the plaint that he came to know about the final decree passed in the partition suit in the month of July, 2020, when defendant No.2 instituted the civil suit for possession against plaintiff on the basis of that final decree passed in the partition suit and alleged her status as owner and the status of plaintiff as licensee. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners could not point out that when the final decree in the partition suit had been passed way back on 29.04.1970, whether that decree was disclosed to plaintiff in any other proceedings, prior to filing of the suit by defendant No.2 in the year 2020. It is not in dispute that plaintiff was not party in that partition suit. It has also transpired that at that point of time plaintiff was not adopted by Sh. Champa Lal Ji as his adoption is of dated 08.09.1969 and partition suit was filed on 06.09.1968. Whether the decree suffers from collusion or fraud is an issue required to be decided after recording evidence of parties in the suit. For the purpose of limitation, on the basis of averments as pleaded in the plaint, the suit cannot be treated as barred by limitation. Averments of plaint, may not be assumed to be incorrect or false, merely on askance of defendants, unless and until prima facie there is any material to show the pleadings in relation to the limitation as camouflage of facts. Therefore, considering the fact that whether plaintiff has challenged the decree passed in previous partition suit on the ground of collusion and fraud, coupled with fact that plaintiff was not party in that suit for partition and decree has not been brought to knowledge of plaintiff prior to the suit for possession filed by defendant No.2, on the basis of final decree passed in partition suit, the present suit may not be held as barred by limitation that too at this stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In case of Shakti Bhog (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that ordinarily the issue of imitation is a mix question of fact and law and that principle of law applied to the facts of present case. In case of Shakti Bhog (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that ordinarily the issue of imitation is a mix question of fact and law and that principle of law applied to the facts of present case. 7.5 Therefore, the plaint is not liable to be rejected on the ground No.(I). 8. Ground (II):- 8.1 As far as objection with regard to under valuation of court fees is concerned, plaintiff has assessed the valuation of suit for possession, for mesne profits and permanent injunction and then has paid court fees of Rs.7,05,135/-. 8.2 At this stage, without recording evidence of parties, it may not be decided that the suit has not been properly valued and court fees is insufficient. 9. Ground (III):- 9.1 As far as jurisdiction of the Civil Court is concerned, plaintiff has instituted the present civil suit on the basis of his ownership rights on the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ and for possession against defendants No.1 and 2. The principle fundamentally disputed in the present suit is about determination of ownership rights between plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 on the basis of their respective claim. The prayer of mesne profits and permanent injunction, for not receiving rent and possession from tenants (defendants No.3 to 21) has also been made against defendants No.1 and 2. Only a part of prayer, seeking to restrain defendants No.3 to 21 not to pay rent to defendants No 1 and 2 and to pay rent to plaintiff, is just an incidental prayer, which is obviously subject to allowing the principle prayer made in the plaint for possession, qua defendants No.1 & 2. 9.2 Having considered pleadings of plaint as a whole, the subject matter of present suit and adjudication of property rights in relation to ’Gulab Niwas’, is not a subject matter of dispute, which arises between the parties under the relationship of landlord and tenants nor is incidental thereto. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the present suit, may not be held to ousted by virtue of application of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. Otherwise also the plaint in part cannot be rejected, as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal Vs. Axis Bank Limited [ (2019) 7 SCC 158 ]. Otherwise also the plaint in part cannot be rejected, as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal Vs. Axis Bank Limited [ (2019) 7 SCC 158 ]. 9.3 Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments: - Dinesh Parmar Vs. Usha Sharma [ (2015) 3 WLN 441 ] - Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shahjahan Begum [(2015) 3 WLN Raj] - Raguwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh [AIR (2019) SC 1430] - Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji [(2020) 16 SCC 366] - Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar Vs. Krishna Nandan Singh [ (2020) 16 SCC 594 ] - Gyaneshwar Bhati Vs. Balu Ram [AIR (2009) Raj 94] The aforesaid judgments, on which learned senior counsel for petitioners has placed reliance, have also been taken into consideration. There is no disagreement to the proposition of law expounded in these judgments, however, the discussion of pleadings of plaint and documents referred therein as has been made in foregoing paragraphs, these judgments do not render any support to petitioners to reject the plaint at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 10. The trial court, in the Order impugned dated 24.03.2022 considered catena of judgments relied on by both parties and after appreciating pleadings of plaint and documents, has decided the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, declining to reject the plaint. The trial court has observed that plaint discloses a cause of action and is not liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation nor can be held to be undervalued or barred by jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Findings of the trial court are well reasoned and speaking, which are not required to be interfered with by this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The impugned order dated 24.03.2022 cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity, material illegality or jurisdictional error, so as to call for interference by the High Court within the scope of Section 115 CPC. 11. Before parting with the judgment, this Court has noticed that in relation to property of ’Gulab Niwas’, two separate suits have been instituted. In relation to the portion which is in possession of respondent No.1-plaintiff Deepak Baid, petitioner No.2-Jyotsana Baid has instituted a civil suit for possession bearing No.32/2020 titled Smt. Jyotsana Baid Vs. 11. Before parting with the judgment, this Court has noticed that in relation to property of ’Gulab Niwas’, two separate suits have been instituted. In relation to the portion which is in possession of respondent No.1-plaintiff Deepak Baid, petitioner No.2-Jyotsana Baid has instituted a civil suit for possession bearing No.32/2020 titled Smt. Jyotsana Baid Vs. Deepak Baid, presently the suit is said to be pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur. In relation to another portion of ’Gulab Niwas’, which is in possession of petitioner No.1-Sanjya Baid and petitioner No.2- Jyotsana Baid, respondent No.1- plaintiff Deepak Baid has filed the suit for possession bearing No.18/2021 titled Deepak Baid Vs. Sanjay Baid, which is pending before the another Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur. The claim pleaded by plaintiff in his/her suit, is the defence in another suit and similar is the position of another suit. In both suits, trial has not been begun and evidence has not started as yet. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served if both suits are tried together by one court, so that the possibility of any conflicting findings/judgments be avoided. Therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to direct that the suit bearing No.18/2021 titled Deepak Baid Vs. Sanjay Baid pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur, be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur, to be tried, heard and decided together with previously instituted suit bearing No.32/2020 titled Smt. Jyotsana Baid Vs. Deepak Baid. It is left open for parties, to make a prayer for consideration of both suits conjointly or proceed for separate trial, but they will be tried simultaneously and together. 12. As a result, the present revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed, with the aforesaid direction. 13. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.