HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 228/2018
Gopal S/o Dallaram, R/o Diloi, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.).
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Ghadsiram S/o Harsharam, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Diloi, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) through
LRs.
1/1. Soni Devi W/o Late Ghadsiram,
1/2. Hem Singh S/o Late Ghadsiram,
1/3. Neewas S/o Late Ghadsiram,
1/4. Sumitra Devi D/o Late Ghadsiram,
1/5. Prabhati Devi D/o Late Ghadsiram,
1/6 Banarsi Devi D/o Late Ghadsiram
All R/o Diloi, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
...Plaintiff/Respondents
2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu.
3. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents-Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek for
Mr. Raghavendra Singh Khichi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
21/07/2022
Petitioner-Defendant has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed in civil suit No.11/2018 by the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby and whereunder the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. (Downloaded on 26/07/2022 at 09:36:32 PM)
(2 of 3) [CR-228/2018] It appears that respondent No.1-Plaintiff instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against Public Works Department. Respondents No.2 and 3 seeking injunction that gravel road be not constructed on the way mark as A to D in the site map appended with the plaint.
The petitioner was not impleaded as party respondent, however on application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the petitioner was impleaded as party defendant No.3.
The petitioner-defendant No.3 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising objection that the suit for permanent injunction is not triable by the civil court and it is exclusively triable by the revenue court, hence in view of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the same be rejected under order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 01.10.2018 observed that the issue involved in the present suit is not relating to tenancy rights of parties, but the injunction has been prayed for against Public Works Department seeking injunction not to construct a gravel road. The trial court observed that the subject matter of issue can not be treated to be barred and to be tried before the Civil Judge.
Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
This court is of the opinion that as per averment of the plaint, the same cannot be said to be barred by law or it cannot be inferred that the jurisdiction of civil court is barred to try and decide the present civil suit.
(Downloaded on 26/07/2022 at 09:36:32 PM)
(3 of 3) [CR-228/2018] From the plaint, no-where appears that the subject in issue is arising out of tenancy rights of parties under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, hence the trial court has not committed any material illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the application.
In view of above, no interference is called for and the revision petition is devoid of merits, hence the same is dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/77 (Downloaded on 26/07/2022 at 09:36:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)