[1] Civil Revision Pet. 60/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 60/2009 ABDUL KARIM @ KALLA HAFIZ & ORS. Vs. KUNJ BIHARI & ORS. Date: 17.07.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, Advocate for the defendants-petitioners. **** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2009, by which the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction and the defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed by the Court and mentioned that after framing issues and recording evidence, objection taken in the application will be decided later on. Again the defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and alleged that the plaintiff has adduced evidence and has closed evidence and by his evidence this fact has been established that the disputed property is waqf [2] Civil Revision Pet. 60/2009 property and this Court has no jurisdiction, so the suit may be dismissed. The plaintiff replied to the application and submitted that the disputed property is not waqf property and as previously filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has already been dismissed, this application also deserves dismissal. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, dismissed the application on the ground that there is no justification to recall the previous order dated 23.01.2003. In this case, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed earlier by the defendants has already been dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2003 and no revision has been filed against that order. In that order, it was observed that after framing issues and recording evidence, this point will be decided. In such circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application of the defendants. As per the application of the defendants, plaintiff's evidence has been completed and now the case must be for defendants evidence in the trial Court. In such circumstances, there was no justification for the defendants to move application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. If any issue regarding jurisdiction has been framed by the trial Court and plaintiff has closed his evidence, that issue should be decided only after recording evidence of the [3] Civil Revision Pet. 60/2009 defendants and there is no justification to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC during pendency of the evidence of the defendants. There is no jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (K.S. CHAUDHARI),J. /KKC/