RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Bal Kishan & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Manoj Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 196 of 2012
Decided On : 07-01-2014
Jurisdiction - Civil Court - Plaintiffs sought declaration and injunction regarding land used for cremation and temple - Court found cause of action disclosed in the plaint and held that Civil Court has jurisdiction - Application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC dismissed
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration and injunction regarding land used for cremation and temple, claimed trespass by petitioners
Finding of the Court:
Court found cause of action disclosed in the plaint and held that Civil Court has jurisdiction, directed trial court to decide issue of land type as a preliminary issue
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court, maintainability of the suit, decision on issue of land type
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiffs' averments disclosed cause of action, jurisdiction of Civil Court established, issue of land type to be decided as a preliminary issue
Final Decision: Revision petition dismissed, stay petition also dismissed
Arun Bhansali, J.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Bikaner ('the trial court'), whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction regarding land said to be comprised in Khasra No.1135, which according to the plaintiffs was being used by them for the purpose of cremation and there were also temple & samadhies on the said land.
3. Based on the averments contained in the plaint, it was submitted that the said land was sought to be trespassed by the petitioners and, therefore, they be restrained from occupying the said land and from stopping the plaintiffs form using the land as cremation place and not to demolish the temple etc.
4. An application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioners, inter alia, with the averments that the land in question was an agriculture land and, therefore, the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was further claimed that the suit has been filed by suppressing material facts and same does not disclose any cause of action. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs.
5. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that the cause of action was disclosed in the plaint and came to the conclusion that as the declaration was being sought regarding cremation ground and temple only Civil Court has the jurisdiction and, consequently, rejected the application.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the plaint averments, it is, apparent that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and the land in question is an agriculture land and, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the said suit. It was submitted that written statement has already been filed, issues framed and from the record, it is, apparent that the plaintiffs have no case and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.
7. I have considered the submissions made and perused the record.
8. From the bare reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action inasmuch as, the plaintiffs have come out with the averments that the land in question is being put to use as cremation ground and temple and, there are certain samadhies also on the said land, which is sought to be occupied by the defendants and the temple and samadhies are likely to be demolished and they have right to use the land for cremation purposes, which would be interfered and as such, the suit was filed seeking declaration and injunction. As such, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
9. So far as the fact as to whether the land in question is an agriculture land and/or the same can be termed as abadi land, so as to maintain the suit before the Civil Court, in the present case at the stage of consideration of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the said aspect based on the bare averments made in the plaint cannot be considered as the case of the plaintiffs is that the land is being put to use as cremation ground and temple exist.
10. The trial court has already framed issue No.4 regarding maintainability of the suit. In the present case, the fact as to whether the land in question is an agriculture land or abadi land is a question of fact and has to be decided after the evidence is led by the parties on the issue.
11. However, looking to the fact that the said aspect pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court, it would be appropriate that the said issue No.4 is decided as a preliminary issue after taking evidence, in case deemed appropriate by the trial court.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that issue No.4 be decided by the trial court as expeditiously as possible pref
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.