The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to settle, decide, or deal with matters under the Tenancy Act as per Section 85, and therefore, the Suit was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Civil Revision Application, the challenge is made to the order below Exhibit 12 in Regular Civil Suit No.268 of 2018 dated 01.07.2021 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘CPC’), wherein prayer was made for rejection of the plaint, by heirs of the deceased Bhailalbhai Muljibhai Thakor, questioning the maintainability of the Suit claiming bar of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the Tenancy Act’).

2. Learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. Hemang H. Parikh contends that the Civil Suit No.26 of 2018 was not even required to be admitted, since the pleadings made by the plaintiff shows that the Suit was barred under Section 85 of the Tenancy Act and no Civil Court has jurisdiction to settle or decide or deal with the matters dealt with by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal or the Collector or the State Government in Appeal or revision. The Civil Court ought to have rejected the plaint outright even without registering the same. It was further submitted that by Exhibit 12, an application was given under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. The facts and the documentary evidence alongwith the plaint were referred and relied upon during the course of arguments before the learned Civil Judge, still however, the application of the applicants / the defendants of the Suit came to be rejected on 01.07.2021.

3. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh that the issue had been raised of being the tenant of the land and there was a Dispute Case No.4 of 2003 before the Mamlatdar, Anand and on 29.05.2004, the Mamlatdar had rejected the change Entry No.71446 dated 03.08.2002 which was in relation to Sale Deed executed on 06.06.2002 in favour of the plaintiff, aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred RTS Appeal No.1 of 2004 before the Deputy Collector, Anand which was dismissed on 30.08.2017 and against that order, the plaintiff had filed RTS Revision No.79 of 2017 before the Collector, Anand and that too was also dismissed and against that, the plaintiff had approached the SSRD, Ahmedabad, which is pending for consideration.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh contended that the issue is with regard to the land bearing Survey No.2609 admeasuring hectare 0-71 are – 81 sq. meters, the defendants had put up a Claim as a tenant of the land under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act before the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, under the provision, to enquire whether the person is or was a tenant or a protected tenant or a permanent tenant preferring Tenancy Case No.283 of 2002. It is submitted that at the time of filing of the application, interim injunction was sought for under Section 70(nb) of the Tenancy Act which was granted ex-parte, on being vacated by Final Order the present applicants preferred Tenancy Appeal No.13 of 2002 before the Deputy Collector which was allowed on 03.06.2006 who issued injunction under Section 70(nb) of the Tenancy Act. Against the said order, the plaintiff had raised Revision Application as TENBA 207/2006 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which was partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal for final decision after drawing the panchnama.

5. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh that the judgments were filed alongwith the plaint at Mark 3/10 and the order was also produced to show that the name of the plaintiff had not been entered in the Extract of Village Form 7/12. The judgment dated 09.08.2018 of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.207 of 2006 was produced to submit that the ultimate paragraph of the judgment orders maintaining the status-quo of the suit property which was directed