Rajasthan High Court
Banwari S/O Bihari vs Anup S/O Meharchand ... on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[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.
[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."
[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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
