Order : (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.) 1. Instant civil revision petition is preferred by petitioner- defendant after dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 22.04.2024 by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction to challenge judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 in civil suit No.105/2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur. He further submits that initially, the plaintiff has filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and same was dismissed by executing court. He further submits that the plaintiff stands in shoes of defendants- judgment debtor and he is a transferee during pendency of litigation and not having any independent right. He also submitted that a civil appeal No.4/2023 was also filed before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed off. He further referred that without any independent right, respondent No.1-plaintiff has no right to institute a civil suit and an independent suit is not maintainable and same is filed against the provision of law. At last, he submitted that such a suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and he submitted that initially he has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC but same was dismissed by trial court and aggrieved from aforesaid, a civil execution first appeal No.4/2023 was filed but this first appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.2023 with liberty to file appropriate proceeding. He further submits that primarily a duty lies upon executing court to decide the issue but the executing court and this Hon’ble court have dismissed his petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC giving an option to the respondent- plaintiff to file a suit, therefore, plaintiff has filed a suit based on fraud and same is maintainable. He also referred the grounds raised in plaint and submitted that respondent No.1 is a bona fide purchaser and present petitioner has obtained a collusive decree and in pursuant to collusive decree an execution proceeding is filed by the petitioner. At last, he submitted that a civil suit filed by respondent-plaintiff cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. At last, he submitted that a civil suit filed by respondent-plaintiff cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. Facts giving rise to institution of present petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction on the ground that he purchased the suit property on 29.04.2016 from Tofique Ahmed. The chain of transfer was explained by plaintiff in para No.2 of plaint which indicate that judgment debtor Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami have executed a power of attorney on 17.10.2007 in favour of Sikander Khan and Sikander Khan has executed a sale deed in favour of Mohammad Farookh on 16.11.2007. The chain of events as mentioned in para No.2 indicated that the property has changed several hands before being acquired by plaintiff. 6. A civil suit titled as Pushkar Dutt Joshi Vs. Mahendra Kumar Swami and Ors. Civll Suit No.105/2007 was decided on 04.08.2010 by learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur. Thereafter, an execution proceeding was filed by decree holder, wherein present respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC which was dismissed on 06.07.2023. The plaintiff (respondent No.1) has filed a civil execution first appeal No.4/2023 and same is dismissed as withdrawn along with application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. A liberty was granted to respondent No.1-plaintiff to file proper proceedings, as advised. 7. Plaintiff has filed an application under Section 151 CPC alleging that present petitioner has suppressed the facts of withdrawal of execution first appeal No.4/2023 and with suppression of facts he has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 8. A perusal of entire material available on record clearly indicates that present plaintiff has purchased the suit property only after passing of decree on 04.08.2010 in civil suit No.105/2007. The rights of plaintiff depends upon the judgment and decree passed in favour of present petitioner. 9. Since respondent No.1-plaintiff is a subsequent purchaser after passing of a decree and he has filed a civil suit against the present petitioner and judgment debtors Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami but without arraying other persons from whom he purchased the property or who purchased the property from Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami. 9. Since respondent No.1-plaintiff is a subsequent purchaser after passing of a decree and he has filed a civil suit against the present petitioner and judgment debtors Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami but without arraying other persons from whom he purchased the property or who purchased the property from Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami. It is apparent on record that respondent No.1-plaintiff while filing the civil suit has not arrayed Mohammad Fafooq, Asgar Khan, Yasmeen Sisodia and Tofique Ahmed as party defendants who were intervening title holder till this property was transferred to respondent No.1-plaintiff. 10. A perusal of entire chain of events as narrated in para 2A to 2N indicates that several persons were involved in transaction of this property and all were not made party, particularly, those who acquired the right, title and interest in the property after respondents Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami. The plaintiff claimed himself to be a bona fide purchaser. Herein, the plaintiff if claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and he acquired the right, title and interest from successor of suit property after passing of decree then he may claim himself to be an aggrieved person and file a first appeal under Section 96 of CPC to challenge judgment and decree passed in favour of present petitioner Pushkar Dutt Joshi but instead of filing a first appeal under Section 96 of CPC, the respondent No.1 has preferred a fresh civil suit. 11. The facts narrated in plaint also indicate that plaintiff has filed an FIR No.311/2019 at PS Jhotwara, Jaipur (West), Jaipur wherein police has filed a final closure report. The plaintiff has claimed that the petitioner decree holder Pushkar Dutt Joshi has obtained a collusive decree but the facts narrated in para No.2 indicate that the plaintiff – respondent No.1 Farhat Abbas Zaidi has not purchased any property directly from Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami rather the property has changed several hands after execution of power of attorney on 17.10.2007 by Mahendra Kumar Swami and Smt. Suman Swami in favour of Sikander Khan. 12. In view of aforesaid, independent suit is not maintainable. The remedy was to challenge the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 in civil suit No.105/2007 by filing a first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. A person aggrieved may file a first appeal with permission under Section 96 of CPC. 12. In view of aforesaid, independent suit is not maintainable. The remedy was to challenge the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 in civil suit No.105/2007 by filing a first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. A person aggrieved may file a first appeal with permission under Section 96 of CPC. A perusal of order dated 11.12.2023 in S.B. Civil Execution First Appeal is also indicate that the execution first appeal was dismissed as withdrawn along with application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC but a liberty was granted to appellant to file appropriate proceeding. This appropriate proceeding is not to file an independent suit. 13. Anybody if aggrieved of judgment and decree passed in civil suit, wherein he is not a party, then he may preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of CPC as an aggrieved person and pray for leave to file appeal. 14. Herein, the facts narrated in plaint are not sufficient to connect present plaintiff with judgment debtor and therefore, plaintiff has not acquired any independent right to file a separate civil suit. Thus, a second round of litigation in judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur is not permissible. 15. In view of aforesaid, the respondent No.1-plaintiff is not entitled to institute a fresh suit to frustrate the judgment and decree passed in favour of present petitioner but certainly he has a right to file a S.B. Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC to challenge the judgment and decree passed in favour of petitioner. In view of aforesaid, the learned trial court has committed serious error while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 16. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant civil revision petition is allowed and order dated 22.04.2024 in civil suit No.31/2023 is set aside. As a result, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is allowed and civil suit filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff is hereby rejected. However, a liberty is granted to respondent No.1, a subsequent purchaser, to file an appeal to challenge judgment and decree passed in favour of present petitioner. In case, the respondent No.1 desires to file a first appeal, the trial court shall not proceed to execute judgment and decree in favour of present petitioner for a period of 60 days, from today. 17. Misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed of.