Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sobha Lal Audhichya vs Bhawani Shankar Menaria on 22 October, 2021
Bench: Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 58/2021
Sobha Lal Audhichya S/o Narayan Lal, aged about 50 years, R/o
43, Shiv Nagar (Nokha Marg), Hiran Magri, Sector No. 4, Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhawani Shankar Menaria S/o Arjun Lal Menaria, R/o 43,
Shiv Nagar (Nokha Marg), Hiran Magri, Sector No. 4,
Udaipur
2. Smt. Ratni W/o Sobha Lal Audhichya, R/o 43, Shiv Nagar
(Nokha Marg), Hiran Magri, Sector No. 4, Udaipur
3. Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur through Secretary,
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Mankad
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
22/10/2021
This civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure is being finally decided at the admission stage.
By way of impugned Order dated 29.01.2021, the Civil Judge
(City North) District Udaipur has rejected the application under
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendant No. 1-petitioner
wherein it has been alleged that the suit is triable by the revenue
court as the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has sought injunction
against construction on the well situated on the agricultural land.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
order impugned as well as material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
(2 of 3) [CR-58/2021]
Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (minor) through Natural
Guardian (father) Sh. Pradeep Kumar Pilania & ors. reported
in 2019(1) CJ (Civ.)(SC) 81 as well as this Court in the case of
Roop Singh Vs. Junjar Singh (Civil Reference No. 4 of 1956)
decided on 27.08.1956, contends that the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 has sought injunction against the defendant No. 1-petitioner
regarding well situated on the agricultural land, hence, as per
provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the suit is
triable by the Revenue Court and the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to grant any relief in this matter.
In the case of Roop Singh (supra), it was held that the Court
will have to see what is the essential relief sought, and if the
essential relief sought is something which the revenue court can
give, the addition of a prayer for permanent injunction or any
other ancillary relief will not oust the jurisdiction of the revenue
court.
As per provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., where the suit
appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law,
the plaint shall be rejected.
Having regard to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, as referred above,
after examining the pleadings of the plaint carefully, it reveals that
the main relief sought by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against
the defendant No. 1-petitioner is that the defendant No. 1-
petitioner is constructing his house in a way endangering house of
the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. He has also sought relief that while
constructing the house, well situated should not be closed. From
reading of the plaint, it cannot be said at this stage that the land
in question is a revenue land. In the plaint, the plaintiff-
(3 of 3) [CR-58/2021]
respondent No. 1 has not claimed any revenue rights on the land.
As mentioned above, his main concern is with regard to safety of
his house, which as per his contention, has been endangered by
construction of the house of defendant No. 1-petitioner. In the
above circumstances, the dispute raised by the plaintiff-
respondent No. 1 in the suit is not of revenue nature. The trial
court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. by the defendant No. 1-petitioner
seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is
barred by law.
The civil revision petition is devoid of any merit, hence, the
same is dismissed in limine.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J
253-Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
