CR/277/2026 of RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARY S/O SHRI MOHARURAM CHAUDHARY, Vs SMT. VIJAY GUPTA W/O SHRI DINESH CHAND GUPTA, on 27 July 2026

Order

27/07/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Phagi, District Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 04/2026, titled 'Vijay Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramchandra Chaudhary', whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was rejected.

2. The facts germane to the present petition, in brief, are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction while stating that the defendant had developed a project named 'Aditya Residency Farm House' upon

(2 of 6) [CR-277/2026] converted land bearing Khasra No. 1410/22, situated at Gram Panchayat Pahadiya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 2.1 It was further averred that the plaintiffs purchased Farm House No. 5, admeasuring 3192.80 square meters, within the said project of the petitioner through one Sanjay Meena for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- (paid equally via cheque and cash), leading to the issuance of an allotment letter, receipt, site plan and handing over possession in their favour on 30.11.2018. However, the original documents were taken back by the said Sanjay Meena citing ongoing criminal litigation between the parties, which followed a negative Final Report (FR) in an earlier 2020 FIR wherein the plaintiffs had established the payment of the entire sale consideration. 2.2 It was further averred that the immediate cause of action allegedly arose on 14.12.2025, when the plaintiffs visited the subject property and discovered that the defendant had erected fencing around it, threatening to unlawfully restrain them from using or constructing upon the land, thereby prompting the plaintiffs to pray for a decree of possession and permanent injunction.

3. After service in the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, contending that there was no privity of contract between the parties. It was further contended therein that the actual agreement to sell was executed exclusively between the defendant and Sanjay Meena on 30.11.2018, and that due to non-payment of the total sale consideration, the said agreement was cancelled vide a legal notice dated 21.07.2020 and a subsequent cancellation deed

(3 of 6) [CR-277/2026] dated 10.01.2026. Pursuant to the cancellation, Sanjay Meena allegedly returned the original allotment Patta to the defendant. Furthermore, the petitioner raised an objection that the plaintiffs had undervalued the suit and paid deficient court fees.

4. In their reply, the plaintiffs/respondents vehemently opposed the said application. They categorically denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, the agreement to sell dated 30.11.2018 and the subsequent cancellation deed dated 10.01.2026 executed between the defendant and Sanjay Meena, asserting that they were neither parties nor witnesses to the same. The plaintiffs further emphasized that the suit was for possession and injunction, not for specific performance, and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the application.

5. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2026. The learned Trial Court observed that the grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the cancellation of agreements and privity of contract constituted mixed questions of fact and law, which could not be adjudicated at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and required the leading of evidence. Furthermore, it was held that the issue regarding the alleged deficiency in the court fees was intrinsically linked to the disputed quantum of the actual sale consideration, and therefore, could not be decided at this stage and the same will be considered after framing of charges and leading of evidence.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

(4 of 6) [CR-277/2026]

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 17.03.2026, primarily argues that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs in the present suit is deficient, yet the learned Trial Court has has not rejected the plaint. The second limb of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no privity of contract between the parties; therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material available on record.

9. It would be apt to reproduce Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under:- "Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] "

(5 of 6) [CR-277/2026]

10. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that while considering the issue of the court fee, the learned Trial Court categorically observed that the suit property has been valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-. It has also been held by learned Trial Court that the issue regarding the alleged deficiency in the court fees is intrinsically linked to the disputed quantum of the actual sale consideration, and therefore, could not be decided at this stage and the same will be considered after framing of charges and leading of evidence. Therefore, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the CPC are not attracted.

11. As far as the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, viz privity of contract, such pleas touch upon the merits of the suit and require examination of evidence. Consequently, the same cannot be taken into consideration at the threshold while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

12. In the upshot of the foregoing discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not fall within the contours of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Court below.

13. The reasoning recorded by the learned Court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity that would warrant interference by this Court under Section 115 of the CPC.

14. As a sequel thereto, the present civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.

(6 of 6) [CR-277/2026]

15. Stay Application No. 2825/2026 and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 9/AMAN