Rajasthan High Court
CR/344/2026 of GOPAL SON OF LATE SHRI DURGA PRASAD YADAV, Vs NARESH KUMAR YADAV, SON OF LATE SHRI CHHAJURAM YADAV, on 21 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 344/2026 CNR: RJHC020772342026 | URN: CR / 591U / 2026 Gopal Son Of Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, Age 42 Years, Resident Of Village Kuned, Tehsil Pawta, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
[2026:RJ-JP:33780]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 344/2026
CNR: RJHC020772342026 | URN: CR / 591U / 2026
Gopal Son Of Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, Age 42 Years, Resident Of Village Kuned, Tehsil Pawta, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner/Defendant No.1
Versus
1.
Naresh Kumar Yadav, Son Of Late Shri Chhajuram Yadav, S/o Late Shri Chhajuram Yadav, Age 39 Years, Resident Of Village Kuned Ward No. 10, Tehsil Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Non-Petitioner/Plaintiff
2.
Kamlesh Umar Yadav, Son Of Late Shri Chhajuram Yadav, Age 32 Years, Resident Of Village Kuned, Ward No. 10, Tehsil Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan, Currently Serving In The Indian Air Force, Nagpur.
----Non-Petitioner/Defendant No.2/
Proforma Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Alakh Parashar for
Mr. Abimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
21/08/2026
1. Mr. Alakh Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present revision petitioner has been filed against the order dated 14.07.2026 passed by Civil Judge, Paota, District Kotpulti-Behror, whereby petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected.
2. Brief facts to the revision petition are that the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction based on an agreement dated 02.07.1988. In the said suit, after service
[2026:RJ-JP:33780] (2 of 2) [CR-344/2026] upon the defandents, the petitioner filed an application that the present suit has been laid on the strength of unregistered document dated 02.07.1988. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to file the present suit and the present suit is barred by law. The said application was contested by the respondent after hearing arguments. The leaned trial Court dismissed the said application while observing the objections so raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and civil trite during the course of trial. Learned counsel being aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2026, has filed the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits since the basis of the suit that is agreement dated 02.07.1988 is an unregistered document, therefore, plaintiff has no cause of action and suit is liable to be dismissed after barred by law.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel by the petitioner and perused the record.
5. A bare perusal of the plaint nowhere talks about the fact as to whether the aforesaid document is unregistered or unstamped, even otherwise, objections so raise have been merely because the document is allegedly unregistered or unstamped. This cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint is barred by any law. The aforesaid objections of the petitioner will be considered after framing necessary issues and leading of the evidence. The objections so raised by the petitioner do not fall within the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The reason assigned by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application does not fall within the purview of the jurisdictional act. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 9/SHIVANI