[2023:RJ-JP:31889]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 228/2019
Banwari S/o Bihari, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Sirod Kalan, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Defendant/Petitioner
Versus
Anup S/o Meharchand, R/o Sirod Kalan Tehsil Mundawar, District
Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Plaintiff-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment 31/10/2023 This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mundawar, District Alwar (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.34/84/2015 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant (for brevity, "the defendant") under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") filed a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the defendant stating therein that the defendant has encroached upon a part of his agricultural land raising construction of a 3 ft. high boundary wall. Therein, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC raising objection as to maintainability of the suit on the grounds inter alia that it is hit by Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, "the Act of 1955"). The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.05.2019, impugned herein. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:05:17 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31889] (2 of 3) [CR-228/2019] Assailing the order dated 03.05.2019, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff in respect of the agricultural land could not have been entertained by the Civil Court in view of bar contained under Section 207 of the Act of 1955. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the order dated 03.05.2019 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC be allowed.
None for the respondent despite service. Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the plaint placed on record as Annexure-1 along with the memo of revision petition reveals that a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction has been filed in respect of an agricultural land.
Section 207 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:
"Sec. 207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only.-- (1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court.
(2) 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 suitor application.
Explanation-- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil Court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted."
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:05:17 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31889] (3 of 3) [CR-228/2019] Indisputably, the suit for injunction finds place in 3 rd Schedule of the Act and in view thereof, Section 207 of the Act of 1955 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such suit.
A perusal of the order impugned dated 03.05.2019 reveals that it has been passed without taking into consideration this vital aspect of the matter. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 03.05.2019 is quashed and set aside.
Resultantly, the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC stands allowed and the plaint stands rejected.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/23 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:05:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)