Gopal S/O Dallaram vs Ghadsiram S/O Harsharam
2022 Latest Caselaw 5013 Raj/2

       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.

(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.

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)