Asharam vs Revenue Board Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11743 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1178/2020

Asharam S/o Adopted Son Of Shri Dungarram, Aged About 84 Years, By Caste - Jat, Resident Of - Padihara, Tehsil Ratangarh District Churu

----Petitioner Versus

1. Revenue Board Of Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Registrar.

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh Dist. Churu.

3. Bhagwana Ram s/o late Shri Baluram, by caste jat, r/o Padihara, Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu at present r/o A-162 Khaturia Colony, Bikaner Dist. Bikaner.

4. Sona Devi d/o late Shri Baluram R/o Pidihara, Tehsil Ratangarh dist. Hemaram by caste jat, r/o Bhinvsar Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu

5. Bhuri Devi d/o Late Baluram r/o Pidihara, Tehsil Ratangarh w/o Bholaram by caste Jat r/o Menasar Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu.

6. Smt. Singhari Devi w/o Late Dhannaram

7. Smt. Shanti devi w/o late Ramchandra s/o Late Dhannaram

8. Munni d/o Late Ramchandra

9. Lali d/o Late Ramchandra

10. Mankori d/o Late Ramchandra

11. Antima d/o Late Ramchandra

12. Mahesh s/o Late Ramchandra

13. Kesharam s/o Late Dhannaram

14. Sitaram s/o Late Dhannaram all by caste Jat r/o Pidihara, Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu

15. Smt. Surji Devi d/o Late Dhannaram w/o Rameshwarlal by caste jat r/o near suryabhawan temple, ward No. 3 Prabhat Nagar, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu

16. Smt. Nanu Devi d/o Late Dhannaram w/o Sohanlal by caste Jat r/o Malasi, Tehsil Sujangarh Dist. Churu

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. KR Saharan

(2 of 5) [CW-1178/2020]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

21/09/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh,

whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC was rejected. Against the order dated 17.07.2019,

the petitioner preferred revision as well as review before the

Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer which were also rejected vide

orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent Balu Ram preferred a suit for declaration, permanent

injunction and correction of revenue entries. During the pendency

of the suit, the petitioner who is respondent in the suit preferred

an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the

suit on the ground that notices under Sections 80 and 80(2) CPC

were not served upon the respondents. Learned counsel further

submits that the service of such notice was a condition precedent

for the maintainability of the suit and since the same was not

served, the suit proceedings should have been dismissed.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-service of

notice under Section 80 CPC will figure in the category of sub-

clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and therefore, the learned Sub

Divisional Officer, Ratangarh committed an error while rejecting

the application so preferred by the petitioner for rejection of the

plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

even the Board of Revenue committed an error while rejecting the

(3 of 5) [CW-1178/2020]

revision petition and the review petition preferred by the petitioner

maintaining the order dated 17.07.2019.

To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of

Dayanand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in

AIR 2001 Raj. 257; judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case

of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Natwerlal M. Badiani reported

in (2001) 2 GLR 1378 and the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in Y. Savarimuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Civil

Appeal Nos. 4495 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.

30945-30946 of 2015). He, therefore, prays that the writ

petition and the application preferred by the petitioner under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be allowed and the plaint preferred by

the respondents may be rejected.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while

supporting the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer, Ratangarh and the revisional and review orders

dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer submits that the relief prayed for in the plaint is

not only against the Government officials as there are other

prayers in the suit which have been sought for against the private

respondents. He further submits that the relief against the

Government officials will be granted only after the trial court

passes a decree of declaration and permanent injunction. Learned

counsel further submits that even as per the provisions under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected as the relief

prayed for in the suit requires adjudication of the issues after

adducing the evidence. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition

may be dismissed.

(4 of 5) [CW-1178/2020]

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the impugned order dated 17.07.2019 passed by

the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh and the revisional and review

orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer along with other relevant record of the case.

The admitted position in the present case is that the

Government officials are one of the respondents in the suit

preferred by the plaintiff, wherein one of the prayers sought for is

for correction of the revenue entries. Besides this prayer, there are

other prayers which have been sought for by the plaintiff against

the private respondents, wherein the permanent injunction along

with the declaration has been prayed for. Therefore, if the

provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, in particular, Clause (d) are

read, then it cannot be said that the relief prayed for in the suit is

only against the Government officials and therefore, notice under

Sections 80 and 80(2) of CPC is sine qua non or mandatory. Since

the multiple reliefs have been sought for in the suit preferred by

the plaintiff, therefore, the condition of serving notice upon the

Government officials cannot be the only reason on the non filing of

which, the suit can be dismissed at the preliminary stage. The

relief prayed for in the suit is multiple and it is noted that the

correction in the revenue records can only be made after the issue

of declaration or permanent injunction is decided by the trial court

and then only the direction for correction in revenue entries can

be made. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires

adjudication after framing of the issues and adducing the evidence

on the point and then only, the correction in the revenue entries

may or may not be directed to be made.

(5 of 5) [CW-1178/2020]

Thus, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order

7 Rule 11 CPC, in particular Clause (d) for rejection of the plaint

does not attracts the provision that the plaint preferred by the

plaintiff is barred by any law.

Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,

the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are

clearly distinguishable and have no application in the facts of the

present case.

In view of the discussions made above, no illegality has been

committed by the courts below in passing the orders impugned.

The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore,

dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

11-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)