HARIRAM ALIAS HARJI RAM BISHNOI vs LAXMANRAM PATEL

[2026:RJ-JD:53542]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 135/2026
CNR: RJHC010385472026 | URN: CR / 341U / 2026
1. Hariram Alias Harji Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Bhiyaram
Bishnoi, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Guda
Bishnoiyan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
2. Thanaram Bishnoi S/o Shri Malaram Bishnoi, Aged About
71 Years, Resident Of Village Pithavas, Tehsil And District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Laxmanram Patel S/o Shri Budharam Ji, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of C-178, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
2. Gautam Bhavan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Through
Chairman Krishna Kumar Singhvi S/o Shri Mankamal
Singhvi. Present Address Near Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Private Bus Stand, Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur.
3. Krishna Kumar Singhvi S/o Shri Manakmal Singhvi,
Resident Of Kk Colony, Sangaria Road, Basni First Phase,
Jodhpur.
4. Joraram Bishnoi S/o Shri Mangalaram Bishnoi, Resident
Of Village Guda Bishnoiyan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
Presently Resident Of 147, Section-7, Patrakar Colony,
New Power House Road, Jodhpur.
5. Shyam Kishore Bhutada S/o Shri Thakurdas, Resident Of
Shambhu Bhawan, Fatehsagar, Jodhpur. Second Address
Sanjeevani Ananda Apartment, Behind Suncity Hospital,
Manji Ka Hath, Pawta, Jodhpur.
6. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Through
Commissioner, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
Ms. Akshita Depora
Mr. Gaurav Ranka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P.Mehta
Mr. V.D. Gaur
Mr. Taney Jain
Mr. Pawan Gupta
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(2 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 20/08/2026
Date on which Order is Reserved : 20/08/2026
Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order
Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant civil revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioners-defendant assailing the order dated 13.04.2026 passed
by the learned Addl. District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metro in Civil
Original Case No.77/2026, whereby the application preferred by
him under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'),
seeking rejection of the plaint, came to be dismissed. By way of
the present revision petition, the petitioners have questioned the
legality and propriety of the aforesaid order, contending that the
learned trial court failed to appreciate the legal impediments
affecting the maintainability of the suit and erroneously declined
to reject the plaint at the threshold.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
examined the impugned order, the pleadings of the parties and
the material available on record.
Facts of the Case
3. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the respondent-plaintiff
instituted a suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory
injunction and perpetual injunction before the learned District
Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The case set up by the plaintiff is
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(3 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
that, pursuant to a proposal extended by defendant No. 2 for sale
of the land comprising Khasra No. 330, the plaintiff agreed to
purchase the same at the rate of Rs.16 lakh per bigha. It has been
averred that an amount of Rs.15 lakh was initially paid through
RTGS and that, out of the total agreed sale consideration of
Rs.1,12,00,000/- (One crore twelve lakh), a sum of Rs.57 lakh
had been paid. Consequently, an agreement to sell dated
18.09.2018 was allegedly executed between the parties.
3.1. As specifically averred in paragraph 3 of the plaint, the
aforesaid agreement was subsequently misplaced, whereupon
another agreement dated 24.05.2019 came to be executed
between the parties, incorporating certain terms and conditions
governing the transaction.
3.2. According to the plaintiff, the subsequent agreement
pertained to approximately seven bighas of land comprised in
Khasra No. 330, which had been acquired under the Vivek Vihar
Yojana of the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA). It has been
pleaded that the parties had mutually agreed that, upon
completion of the requisite legal formalities and issuance of
residential and commercial pattas in respect of the land in
question, the same would be transferred to the plaintiff in
accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the
agreement dated 24.05.2019. It has further been averred in
paragraph 4 of the plaint that defendant No.1 received an amount
of Rs.25 lakh towards the transaction contemplated under the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(4 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
subsequent agreement, forming part of the total agreed sale
consideration of Rs.1,12,00,000/- (Rs. One crore 12 lakh).
3.3. The plaintiff has specifically alleged that, despite repeated
requests and reminders, defendant No.1 failed to pursue the
requisite proceedings before the JDA for obtaining residential and
commercial pattas in respect of the acquired land and thereafter
transferring the same to the plaintiff upon receipt of the remaining
sale consideration. According to the plaintiff, he continued to
repose confidence in the assurances extended by the defendants,
who repeatedly represented that the requisite formalities would be
completed and the transaction would ultimately be brought to its
logical conclusion.
3.4. The plaint further contains averments concerning the
difficulties allegedly encountered between the private defendants
and the JDA in relation to issuance of the pattas. It is the
plaintiff's case that the defendants continued to assure him that,
upon resolution of the said difficulties, they would receive the
remaining sale consideration and take necessary steps for
issuance and registration of the pattas in favour of the plaintiff in
respect of the land forming the subject matter of the agreement.
3.5. The plaintiff has also delineated the circumstances giving rise
to the cause of action by alleging that defendant No.1 failed to
pursue the requisite proceedings before the JDA and, in collusion
with defendant Nos.3 to 6, attempted to facilitate issuance of
pattas in favour of other persons, contrary to the terms of the
agreement. According to the plaintiff, such conduct constituted a
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(5 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
breach of the contractual obligations undertaken by the
defendants and adversely affected his asserted civil and
contractual rights.
3.6. The plaintiff has further pleaded his readiness and
willingness to perform his part of the contract, including payment
of the remaining sale consideration in accordance with the agreed
terms. On the strength of the aforesaid averments, the plaintiff
has sought a decree for specific performance of the agreements,
along with consequential reliefs of mandatory and perpetual
injunction, directing the defendants to complete the requisite
formalities for obtaining residential and commercial pattas from
the JDA and to ensure their transfer and registration in favour of
the plaintiff upon receipt of the balance sale consideration.
3.7. The petitioner-defendant, however, preferred an application
under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking
rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit, as instituted,
was not maintainable in law. The learned trial court, upon
consideration of the pleadings and rival submissions, declined to
accept the objections raised by the petitioner and dismissed the
application, observing, inter alia, that the controversy essentially
pertained to enforcement of the alleged contractual obligations
between the parties and that the plaintiff had not sought to assail
the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the JDA. Aggrieved by
the aforesaid order, the petitioner-defendant has approached this
Court by way of the present civil revision petition.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(6 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant assailed the
impugned order, contending that the learned trial court failed to
appreciate the true nature of the dispute and the legal
consequences flowing from the acquisition of the land under the
scheme of the JDA. It was argued that the land in question had
already been acquired and, therefore, the alleged private
arrangement between the parties could not, by itself, confer any
enforceable right upon the plaintiff to claim transfer of the
acquired land or issuance of pattas in his favour. It was further
contended that the plaint, when read in its entirety, did not
disclose any legally enforceable cause of action warranting
continuation of the suit and that the learned trial court had
erroneously relegated the parties to a full-fledged trial despite the
alleged legal infirmities apparent from the pleadings. It was
further submitted that the learned trial court failed to properly
appreciate the statutory framework governing the land acquired
by the JDA and the limitations imposed upon private parties in
relation to such acquired land. On these premises, learned counsel
urged that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and
jurisdictional error and deserves to be set aside by exercising the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
plaintiff supported the impugned order and submitted that the suit
has been instituted on the basis of specific contractual
arrangements allegedly entered into between the parties,
pursuant to which substantial consideration had already been
paid. It was contended that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(7 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
the execution of the agreements, payment of consideration,
obligations undertaken by the defendants and their subsequent
failure to honour the contractual commitments. The plaintiff had
also unequivocally pleaded his readiness and willingness to
perform his part of the contract. Learned counsel further
submitted that the plaintiff has not sought adjudication of the
validity of the acquisition proceedings or any relief for setting
aside the same. Rather, the reliefs claimed are directed towards
enforcement of the alleged contractual obligations undertaken by
the defendants. It was, therefore, contended that the objections
raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact and law
which can appropriately be adjudicated only after the parties are
afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. Accordingly, dismissal of
the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was justified and the
present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
Findings and Observations
6. Having bestowed thoughtful consideration upon the rival
submissions and having carefully scrutinised the impugned order
in the light of the pleadings available on record, this Court finds
that the controversy involved in the present revision petition
essentially revolves around the scope and applicability of Order VII
Rule 11 CPC and the permissible limits within which a plaint can
be rejected at the threshold. Before adverting to the factual
matrix of the case, it would be apposite to reiterate that the power
conferred upon a civil court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
undoubtedly significant; however, the same is circumscribed by
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(8 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
the statutory parameters expressly engrafted therein and cannot
be exercised in an arbitrary or mechanical manner.
7. The settled legal position is that, while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to
examine the averments contained in the plaint, read meaningfully
and conjointly, rather than proceeding on the basis of isolated or
selectively extracted statements. At this stage, the court is
ordinarily concerned with the plaintiff's own pleadings and the
documents relied upon by him, to the extent permissible in law.
The defence sought to be projected by the defendant, or the
disputed factual assertions raised in opposition to the suit, cannot
ordinarily be imported into the consideration of such an application
for determining whether the plaint deserves rejection.
8. The underlying rationale of the aforesaid provision is to
ensure that litigation which is ex facie barred by law, devoid of a
cause of action or otherwise falling within the specific
contingencies contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not
unnecessarily permitted to proceed. At the same time, the
provision cannot be construed as conferring upon the court an
unrestricted authority to adjudicate disputed questions of fact,
appreciate competing versions of the parties or undertake a
premature evaluation of the merits of the plaintiff's claim at the
threshold.
9. It is equally well settled that the expression 'cause of action'
signifies the bundle of material facts which the plaintiff is required
to establish in order to obtain the relief sought. For determining
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(9 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must
undertake a meaningful reading of the entire plaint and ascertain
whether the material averments, if taken at their face value,
disclose a legally cognisable grievance requiring adjudication. The
court is not required to determine at this preliminary stage
whether the plaintiff would ultimately succeed in establishing such
averments through evidence.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, it emerges that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded the
execution of two agreements, namely, the agreement dated
18.09.2018 and the subsequent agreement dated 24.05.2019.
The plaint further contains specific assertions regarding payment
of substantial amounts towards the agreed consideration, the
obligations allegedly undertaken by the defendants in relation to
obtaining residential and commercial pattas, and their subsequent
failure to take the requisite steps for completion of the
transaction. The plaintiff has also delineated the circumstances in
which the alleged breach occurred and has specifically pleaded his
readiness and willingness to perform his corresponding contractual
obligations.
11. Thus, the plaint cannot, at this preliminary stage, be
characterised as one which is bereft of material particulars or does
not disclose any cause of action. Whether the agreements were
actually executed in the manner alleged, whether the amounts
claimed to have been paid were in fact received by the
defendants, whether the defendants assumed any legally
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(10 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
enforceable obligation to obtain the pattas and whether the
plaintiff fulfilled the statutory and contractual requirements for
claiming specific performance are all matters which require
examination in the light of the evidence ultimately brought on
record.
12. The contention that the subsequent agreement pertains to
land already acquired under the Vivek Vihar Yojana of the JDA also
requires consideration in its proper legal perspective. Undoubtedly,
acquisition of land by a statutory development authority may have
significant consequences upon the rights and interests of the
persons claiming through private arrangements concerning such
land. However, the mere factum of acquisition, by itself, cannot be
treated as a conclusive determination of every contractual dispute
arising between the parties in relation to the transaction.
13. In this regard, a distinction is required to be maintained
between a proceeding seeking adjudication of rights arising out of
acquisition proceedings or questioning the legality of action
undertaken by a statutory authority and a civil action founded
upon an alleged contractual arrangement between private parties.
The nature of the relief sought, the foundation of the plaintiff's
claim and the substance of the pleadings are the determinative
considerations for examining the true character of the suit.
14. In the present matter, as emerges from the plaint and has
also been noticed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff has not
sought to challenge the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the
JDA. Nor, on the basis of the pleadings presently under
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(11 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
consideration, does the suit appear to be founded upon a direct
challenge to the validity of the acquisition itself. The principal
grievance articulated by the plaintiff is that, notwithstanding the
alleged contractual commitments and receipt of substantial
consideration, the defendants failed to undertake the requisite
steps for obtaining and transferring the pattas in accordance with
the terms of the agreements.
15. Whether such an arrangement is legally permissible, whether
the defendants possessed the requisite authority or entitlement to
undertake the obligations alleged against them, and whether any
enforceable contractual right could accrue to the plaintiff in
respect of the acquired land are undoubtedly significant questions.
Nevertheless, the determination of these issues would require
examination of the terms of the agreements, the legal status of
the land, the applicable statutory provisions and the precise
nature of the obligations undertaken by the respective parties. The
same cannot be conclusively determined merely by accepting the
defence version at the stage of consideration of an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
16. It is pertinent to observe that rejection of a plaint is a drastic
consequence which brings the entire civil action to an end without
an adjudication upon the substantive controversy. Consequently,
the statutory provision must be applied with due circumspection.
Where the plaint, on a meaningful reading, discloses a cause of
action and the alleged bar to the suit is not demonstrably
established from the plaint itself, the court would not be justified
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(12 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
in rejecting the plaint merely because the defendant has raised
substantial objections concerning the plaintiff's entitlement to the
relief claimed.
17. At the same time, it must be clarified that the dismissal of an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not amount to an
affirmation of the legality, validity or enforceability of the
agreements in question. Nor does it confer any vested right upon
the plaintiff to claim issuance or transfer of pattas contrary to the
applicable statutory provisions or the governing scheme of the
JDA. The plaintiff would still be required to establish, in
accordance with law, that the agreements are valid and
enforceable and that the relief sought is legally permissible. All
such questions remain open for adjudication before the learned
trial court at the appropriate stage.
18. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the
distinction between the existence of a cause of action and the
ultimate entitlement to a decree cannot be overlooked. The former
concerns the sufficiency of the pleadings for instituting and
maintaining a civil action, whereas the latter can ordinarily be
determined only upon appreciation of the evidence and application
of the relevant legal provisions. An assertion of contractual rights,
if adequately pleaded, cannot be rejected merely because the
defendant disputes its legal effect or contends that the plaintiff
would ultimately be disentitled to the relief sought.
19. Furthermore, the mere possibility that the plaintiff may fail
to establish the alleged agreements, may be unable to prove the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(13 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
payments or may not satisfy the legal requirements for specific
performance cannot constitute a ground for rejection of the plaint
at the threshold. The adjudicatory process is intended to resolve
such contested issues upon consideration of the pleadings, issues
framed and evidence adduced by the parties. Premature
determination of these aspects at the stage of Order VII Rule 11
CPC would amount to converting a preliminary scrutiny of the
plaint into a mini-trial, which is impermissible in law.
20. Coming to the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section
115 CPC, it is well settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court is
not co-extensive with that of an appellate court. The revisional
power is intended to correct jurisdictional errors committed by
subordinate courts and is not meant to facilitate a rehearing of the
matter on merits merely because a party is dissatisfied with the
conclusion arrived at by the court below.
21. The revisional jurisdiction is exercisable within the confines
of the statutory conditions stipulated under Section 115 CPC.
Interference is warranted where the subordinate court has
exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity, subject to the limitations
contained in the proviso to the said provision. The jurisdiction
cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appellate remedy or for
undertaking a fresh evaluation of the rival contentions in the
absence of any demonstrable jurisdictional infirmity.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(14 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
22. In the present case, the learned trial court was competent to
entertain and decide the application preferred under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC. It examined the nature of the suit, considered the
reliefs claimed by the plaintiff and noticed that the controversy
essentially pertained to enforcement of the alleged contractual
obligations between the parties. The learned trial court also took
note of the fact that the plaintiff had not questioned the
acquisition proceedings undertaken by the JDA. On the basis of
such consideration, it declined to reject the plaint at the threshold.
23. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned
trial court cannot be said to suffer from any such jurisdictional
error or material irregularity as would warrant interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner has not been able
to demonstrate that the learned trial court assumed a jurisdiction
not vested in it, declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or
exercised its jurisdiction in a manner contrary to the settled
principles governing Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
24. It is also significant that the objections raised by the
petitioner substantially concern the legal enforceability of the
alleged agreements and the consequences flowing from acquisition
of the land by the JDA. These contentions may constitute relevant
defences in the suit and may have a bearing upon the ultimate
adjudication of the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance.
However, unless the suit is shown to be ex facie barred by law on
the basis of the plaint itself, such objections cannot be employed
as a ground to terminate the proceedings at their inception.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(15 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
25. The Court is, therefore, unable to subscribe to the
proposition that the learned trial court committed any material
illegality merely by declining to accept the petitioner's objections
at the preliminary stage. The impugned order reflects
consideration of the essential nature of the controversy and does
not disclose any patent perversity, jurisdictional transgression or
material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115
CPC.
26. It is reiterated that the observations made herein are
confined exclusively to the controversy arising out of the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This Court has
consciously refrained from expressing any final opinion on the
genuineness, validity or enforceability of the agreements, the
actual payment of consideration, the legal status of the acquired
land, the authority of the defendants to undertake the obligations
alleged against them or the plaintiff's ultimate entitlement to
specific performance. All these issues shall remain open to be
considered by the learned trial court in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order.
Conclusion
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
learned trial court has committed no jurisdictional error or
material irregularity in dismissing the application preferred by the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. The
impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)

(16 of 16)
[2026:RJ-JD:53542] [CR-135/2026]
interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 115 CPC.
28. Consequently, the present civil revision petition, being devoid
of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the
observations made herein shall not be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the substantive suit or the respective
rights and liabilities of the parties. The learned trial court shall
independently adjudicate the suit, in accordance with law, on the
basis of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, without
being influenced by the observations made herein.
29. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_7 (1763)
S/314
Mamta
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:06:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)