1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S. B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. _________/2019

M/S RAJKUMAR VISHANDAS AND SONS HAVING ITS

REGISTERED ADDRESS AT PALIWAL MARKET, M/S

RAJKUMAR VISHANDAS AND SONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

NATANIYON KA RASTA, TRIPOLIA BAZAAR, JAIPUR,

RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER RAJKUMAR

THAWRANI

...Petitioner/Defendant

VERSUS

M/S RAJKUMAR VISHANDAS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 28-29, M.G.D.

MARKET, TRIPOLIA BAZAAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

THROUGH ITS PARTNER RAJESH BHAGWANDAS

THAWRANI

...Respondent/Plaintiff

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION UNDER

SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER

DATED 16.12.2020 PASSED BY MRS.

TASNEEM KHAN, ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE NO. 7,

 2

JAIPUR METROPOLITAN II, JAIPUR IN

THE CIVIL SUIT NO. 99/2020 TITLED AS

''M/S RAJKUMAR VISHANDAS VERSUS

M/S RAJKUMAR VISHANDAS AND

SONS'' WHEREBY, THE APPLICATION

UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE FILED BY THE

PETITIONER/DEFENDANT WAS

DISMISSED.

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and his other

companion Judges of the High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur.

May Please to your Lordships:-

The humble Petitioner, above named most respectfully

submit the revision petition as under:-

1. That the present petition has been filed against the impugned

order dated 16.12.2020 passed by Ld. Additional District &

Session Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur in Civil

Suit No. 99/2020 titled as ‘M/S Rajkumar Vishandas Versus

M/S Rajkumar Vishandas And Sons’. The copy of the

 3

impugned order dated 16.12.2020 is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure-1.

2. The brief facts that are indispensable for adjudication of the

instant petition are that Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for

infringement of trademark and passing off and injunction vis-

à-vis the use of trade name Rajkumar Vishandas,

compensation possession and injunction vis-à-vis an

agricultural land having khasra no. 80/172 and 79/171

situated at village Jaipuriyon Ka Bas, Ward No. 2, Sirsi,

Jaipur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as disputed land).

The Respondent/Plantiff asserted in his plaint that he

provided his disputed agricultural land to the

Petitioner/Defendant in the year 1996 for his living on the

promise that the Petitioner/Defendant will vacate and hand

over the possession of the land to the Respondent/Plaintiff

whenever he is asked to do so. Respondent/Plaintiff further

alleges that he cancelled the permission granted to the

Petitioner/Defendant to live on the disputed land on

01.04.2007 but Petitioner/Defendant refused to vacate and

hand over the possession of the disputed land to

Respondent/Plaintiff. Thus, the suit was filed before the ld.

Court below. The prayer made in the plaint for the

convenience of Hon’ble Court is reproduced hereunder:-

 4

The copy of the plaint is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure-2.

3. That the Petitioner/Defendant filed an application under

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the Ld. Court below asserting

that the nature of the suit is such that it is cognizable by

revenue court and jurisdiction of the civil court is specifically

barred. Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as the act of 1955) provides for the suits and

applications cognizable by the Revenue Courts and that no

other Court would take cognizance of such suit. Under

Section 207 of the Act of 1955, all the suits and application of

the nature specified in third schedule can be heard and

determined by the revenue courts. Thus, the relief sought by

the Respondent/Plaintiff can only be granted by the revenue

court. A copy of the application filed by the Petitioners under

Order 7 Rule 11 is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure-3.

4. The Ld. Court below after considering the submissions of

both the parties in a superfluous manner without

appreciating the merits of the application dismissed it in

cryptic manner vide impugned order dated 01.03.2019.

5. That the impugned order dated 01.03.2019 dismissing the

application of the Petitioner/Defendant filed under Order 7

 5

Rule 11 of CPC is not sustainable in the light of facts and

laws and therefore Petitioners submit this revision petition on

the following grounds amongst others:-

GROUNDS

A. Because the impugned order passed by the learned trial court

is based on non-application of mind and is blatant disregard

of the mandate of law envisaged in Rajasthan Tenancy Act,

1955. Section 207 of the Act of 1955 states that all suits and

applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule

shall be heard and determined by a revenue court and no

court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any

such suit or application or of any suit or application based on

a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be

obtained by means of any such suit or application. The Ld.

Court below by rejecting the Application of the Petitioners

under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC had permitted a civil suit to

continue concerning an agricultural land which is the subject

matter of revenue court.

B. Because the Ld. Court below without delving into the real

controversy in the instant matter dismissed the application of

the Petitioner. The Ld. Court while rejecting the application of

the Petitioner observed that the nature of the disputed land is

though agricultural but the Petitioner was using the disputed

 6

land for living thus civil court jurisdiction is not barred. It is

submitted that the observation made by the Ld. Court below

is completely perverse to the facts of the instant suit and is in

contravention of the scheme of laws pertaining to Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955. The law is settled on this point that if the

agricultural land is not converted then irrespective of its use

it will be treated as agricultural land and also in the instant

case very small area of the total land is used for living rest of

the land is used for agricultural purposes.

C. Because Ld. Court while rejecting the application placed its

reliance on the fact that the suit is pending since 2007 and is

at the stage of defendant’s evidence and Petitioner by filing

such application wants to delay and obstruct the trial. It is

pertinent to mention here that the Ld. Court below

disregarded the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of R.

K. Roja Vs. U. S. Rayudu & Anr. had held that the application

under Order 7 Rule 11 can be filed at any stage of the suit.

D. Because the Ld. Court below passed the impugned order in

complete disregard of the existing laws relating to agricultural

land. Item No. 8A, 23, 23A & 23C of Third Schedule read with

Section 92, 183, 187 & 188 respectively of the Rajasthan

Tenacy Act, 1955 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in the

instant suit.
 7

E. Because the learned trial Court has erred in discarding the

documents available on record without application of judicial

mind and on frivolous grounds.

F. Because the Petitioner-Plaintiff craves leave of the Hon'ble

Court to urge other and further grounds in support at the

time of arguments.

6. That no such revision petition has been filed previously before

this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your

lordships may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition

and quash and set aside the impugned order dated

01.03.2019 passed by Ld. Additional District & Session Judge

No. 4 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 96/07

titled as ‘Kanaram v Shantilal’.

This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to reject the

plaint of the Petitioner by exercising its revisional powers and

correct the infirmities perpetrated by the Ld. Court below in

dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC &

imposing cost of Rupees 3000 on Petitioner/Defendant and

further this Hon’ble Court may kindly pass such other and

further order as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

HUMBLE PETITIONER
 8

THROUGH HIS COUNSEL

SWADEEP SINGH HORA/GESU

HORA/MANISH SHARMA
ADVOCATES
 9

NOTES:-

1. No such S.B Civil Revision Petition has been filed prior

to it before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the extra set and P.F. Notices will be filed

immediately on the direction of the Hon’ble Court.

3. Pie papers are not readily available and hence stout

papers have been used.

4. This revision petition has been typed in my office by my

private Steno.

5. That the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has

territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR.

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO._________/2019

M/S Rajkumar Vishandas And Sons

Versus
M/S Rajkumar Vishandas

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF REVISION PETITION

I, Rajkumar Thawrani, S/o Late Shri Vishandas, aged

about 66 years, R/o D-59, Purana Aatish Market, Tripolia
Bazaar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Petitioner in the present petition,
do hereby state on oath as under: -

1. That I am the Petitioner in the instant petition and I am

competent to submit the instant revision petition before
this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the annexed petition has been drafted by the
counsel on my instructions and on the basis of material
and information furnished by me to the counsel. I have
gone through the petition and have fully understood the
contents thereof.
3. That the facts stated in paragraphs ____ to ____ and
their sub paras including the grounds in the annexed
petition are true and correct to my knowledge and the
legal submissions made therein are based on legal
advice tendered by the counsel which I believe to be true
and correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of my above affidavit are true
and correct; nothing material has been concealed therefrom
and no part of its false.
SO HELP ME GOD.

DEPONENT
 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO._______/2019

IN

S. B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. _________/2019

HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT PALIWAL MARKET,

M/S RAJKUMAR VISHANDAS AND SONS, A PARTNERSHIP

FIRM NATANIYON KA RASTA, TRIPOLIA BAZAAR, JAIPUR,

RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER RAJKUMAR

THAWRANI

...Petitioner/Defendant

VERSUS

M/S RAJKUMAR VISHANDAS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 28-29, M.G.D.

MARKET, TRIPOLIA BAZAAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

THROUGH ITS PARTNER RAJESH BHAGWANDAS

THAWRANI

...Respondent/Plaintiff

STAY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF

 12

JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH,

JAIPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

The facts relevant for the adjudication of the present

Stay application briefly stated as under:-

1. That the applicant has this day filed the above noted

revision petition before the Hon’ble Court. Leave is,

however craved of this Hon’ble Court to treat the said

revision petition as part and parcel of this stay

application as the facts and grounds detailed in the

revision are not being repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.

2. That the applicant is advised that it has a likelihood of

the revision petition being allowed by the Hon’ble Court.

3. That the balance of convenience is also in favour of the

applicant.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may kindly accept and allow the stay application and to

stay the further proceeding before the Additional District &

Session Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, in the

 13

Civil Suit No. 99/2020 titled as ''M/s Rajkumar Vishandas v.

M/s Rajkumar Vishandas and Sons''.

This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to pass any

other further order as may be deemed fit and proper in favour

of the applicant.

HUMBLE PETITIONER
THROUGH HIS COUNSEL

SWADEEP SINGH HORA/GESU

HORA/MANISH SHARMA
ADVOCATES
NOTES:-

1. No such stay application has been filed prior to it before

this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the extra set and P.F. Notices will be filed immediately

on the direction of the Hon’ble Court.

3. Pie papers are not readily available and hence stout papers

have been used.

4. This stay application has been typed in my office by my

private Steno.

5. That the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has

territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

14
 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR.
S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. ______/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO._______ /2019

M/s Rajkumar Vishandas and Sons

Versus
M/s Rajkumar Vishandas

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF STAY APPLICATION

I, Rajkumar Thawrani, S/o Late Shri Vishandas, aged

about 66 years, R/o D-59, Puraana Aatish Market, Tripolia
Bazaar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Petitioner in the present petition,
do hereby state on oath as under: -

1. That I am Petitioner in the instant petition and I am

competent to file the present stay application.

2. That the annexed stay application has been drafted by

the counsel on my instructions and on the basis of
material and information furnished by me to the
counsel. I have gone through the stay application and
have fully understood the contents thereof.

3. That the facts stated in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the

Application are true and correct to my knowledge and
the legal submissions made therein are based on legal
advice tendered by the counsel which I believe to be true
and correct.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of my above affidavit are true
and correct; nothing material has been concealed therefrom
and no part of its false.
SO HELP ME GOD.
DEPONENT
 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR.
S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. ______/2019

M/s Rajkumar Vishandas and Sons

Versus
M/s Rajkumar Vishandas

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTS

I, Rajkumar Thawrani, S/o Late Shri Vishandas, aged

about 66 years, R/o D-59, Puraana Aatish Market, Tripolia
Bazaar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Petitioner in the present petition,
do hereby state on oath as under: -

1. That I am Petitioner in the instant petition and I am

fully conversant with the facts of the instant revision
petition.

2. That the documents annexed with this revision petition

as Annexure-1 is certified copy of the impugned order
while Annexure-2 & Annexure-3 are true and correct
photostate copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of my above affidavit are true
and correct; nothing material has been concealed therefrom
and no part of its false.
SO HELP ME GOD.

DEPONENT
 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR, JAIPUR.

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO._______/2019

M/s Rajkumar Vishandas and Sons

Versus
M/s Rajkumar Vishandas

INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
1. Memo of Revision Petition
2. Affidavit in support of Revision Petition
3. Stay Application
4. Affidavit in support of Stay Application
5. DOCUMENTS: -
Anx.1 The copy of the impugned order dated
16.12.2020.
Anx.2 A copy of the civil suit filed by the
Respondent.
Anx.3 A copy of the application filed by the
Petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11

6. Affidavit in support of documents.

Jaipur

Date: Counsel for the Petitioners

 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR, JAIPUR.

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. ______/2021

M/s Rajkumar Vishandas and Sons

Versus
M/s Rajkumar Vishandas

S Y NO P S I S

HENCE THIS PETITION

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS