Rajasthan High Court
Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Radhey Shyam vs Parshvnath Digamber Jain Jan Kalyan ... on 23 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:9234]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 179/2016
1. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam, R/o Village
Kalyanpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
2. Ramesh Chand Kumhar Son Of Shri Praabhu Dayal
Kumhar, R/o Village Garh, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.
3. Bhagatram Meena Son Of Shri Ramnath Meena, R/o
Village Garh Ki Kothya, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.
4. Nanagram Meena Son Of Shri Ramgopal Meena, Resident
Of Hanuta Patel Ki Dhani, Village Shyampura, Post
Mohanpura, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Parshvnath Digamber Jain Jan Kalyan Trust, Bassi
Through Managing Trustee And President Padam Chand
Jain S/o Late Shri Gulab Chand Ji Jain, R/o Gaur Bazar,
Bassi, Jaipur.
2. Rajesh Kumar Kasliwal Son Of Shri Padam Chand
Kasliwal, Resident Of Village Bassi Shanta Bhawan, Vyas
Mohalla, Bassi Member Executive Shri Parshvnath
Digamber Jain Jan Kalyan Trust, Bassi.
3. Shri Bhanwarlal Son Of Shri Hajarilal, Resident Of Village
Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur And Plot No. 5A, Laxmi
Nagar-B, Goner Road, Jaipur
4. Pawan Kumar Son Of Late Shri Padam Chand Jain, Son Of
Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain.
5. Shanta Kumar Son Of Late Shri Padam Chand Jain, Son
Of Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain.
6. Sumit Kumar Son Of Late Shri Padam Chand Jain, Son Of
Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain.
7. Shriyansh Kumar Son Of Late Shri Padam Chand Jain, S/o
Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain.
8. Varun Kumar Son Of Late Shri Padam Chand Jain, Son Of
Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain.
9. Smt. Mota Devi Wife Of Late Padam Chand Jain, R/o
Village Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (Deceased).
10. Mahavir Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:22:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:9234] (2 of 4) [CR-179/2016]
(Bakliwal), R/o House No. 2976, Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka
Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
11. Nirmal Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain, R/o
House No. A-1845, Chobiyan Ka Chowk, Johri Bazar,
Jaipur.
12. Sushil Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Jai Kumar Jain, S/o
Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain, R/o Village Shivdaspura,
Tehsil Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.
13. Akshay Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Kamaal Chand Jain Son
Of Late Shri Teni Chand Jain, R/o Village Shivdaspura,
Tehsil Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.
14. Bhag Chand Jain Son Of Late Shri Bherulal Jain (Bhonch),
R/o Village Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.(Since
Deceased ) (Deleted).
15. Mahendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Bherulal Jain
(Bhonch), R/o Village Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.
16. Smt. Anokhi Devi Wife Of Late Shri Prem Chand Jain, R/o
Village Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.(Deceased)
(Deleted).
17. Sub Registrar, Bassi Office Situated At Village Bassi, Tehsil
Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajan Prajapati, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 23/02/2024
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by Additional District &
Sessions Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil suit
No.17/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:22:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:9234] (3 of 4) [CR-179/2016]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed a civil suit for declaring the
registered sale deed dated 25.10.2012 which was registered in
Sub-Registrar Office Bassi on 26.10.2012 as null and void and
they also sought the relief of permanent injunction regarding
disputed revenue land. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
submits that the petitioners had filed an application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC but trial court vide order dated 10.02.2016 wrongly
dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel
for the petitioners also submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2
wanted to declare the sale deed dated 25.10.2012 as null and void
and also sought the permanent injunction. The said dispute is
related to revenue land and as per Section 207 of Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, revenue court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the
matter and civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, order
passed by the trial court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Rajasthan State Shriganganagar
Sugar Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajeet Singh & Ors. in S.B. Civil
First Appeal No.1/2023 decided on 29.03.2023 and (2)
Banwari Vs. Anup in S.B. Civil Revision Petition
No.228/2019 decided on 31.10.2023.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and
submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 wanted to declare the
so-called sale deed as null and void because these sale deeds
were executed by fraud. He also submits that respondents are not
seeking relief as contained in 3rd Schedule of Land Revenue Act.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:22:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:9234] (4 of 4) [CR-179/2016]
So, Section 207 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is not applicable in
the present matter. Learned counsel for the respondents also
submits that issue regarding jurisdiction is a mixed question of law
and fact. So, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed
by the petitioners. So, revision petition be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the
respondents.
Trial court while dismissing the application filed by the
petitioners clearly mentioned that the respondents sought the
so-called sale deed as null and void on account of being executed
by fraud. Trial court also mentioned that respondents are not
seeking relief which to be given by the revenue court. So, in my
considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in
dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. So, present
revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed,
which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /Tahir/12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
