DINESH MEHTA, J.

Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’), vide which the petitioners’ suit had been returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has invoked the power of superintendence of this Court, vested in it, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts are handful, but all of them need to be noticed.

3. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of their inheritance rights with the following prayer

^^vr% fuosnu gS fd oknhx.k dk oknk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj oknhx.k ds i{k esa oknhx.k ds i{k esa oknhx.k dks e`rd xksek] [kqek] /kkiw] ykyk] os.kk ds ,dek= mRrjkf/kdkjh okfjl gksus dh ?kks’k.kkRed fMØh Ápfyr QjekbZ tkos A

vU; dksbZ lgk;rk tks oknhx.k dks fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gks fnykbZ tkos A**

4. Before the suit could be registered, the trial court vide its order dated 12.04.2013, returned the plaint, to be filed in revenue court, with the following observations

^^fof/k dk ;g lqLFkfir fl/nkar gS fd fdlh okn ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk fcanq okn ds vfHkopu ds vk/kkj ij gh r; fd;k tkuk pkfg, A gLrxr okn esa oknhx.k us okn ds VkbZVy esa ^^mRrjkf/kdkj ?kks”k.kk** vafdr fd;k gS fd rFkk vuqrks”k ds dkWye esa oknhx.k dks e`rd xksek] Hkwjk [kqek] /kkiw] ykyk] os.kk ds ,dek= mRrjkf/kdkjh okfjl gksus dh ?kks”k.kkRed fMØh ikfjr fd;s tkus dh ÁkFkZuk dh gS fd ftlds vk/kkj ij oknhx.k okn ds iSjk la 4 esa jktLo xzke /kksVh iVokj gYdk dkyknsg esa vkjkth la- 526 jdck ,d ch?kk pkj fcLok] vkjkth la- 482 jdck rhu ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 516 jdck l=kg fcLok] vkjkth la- 515 jdck ,d ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 2621@517 jdck nks ch?kk ikap fcLok] vkjkth la- 554 jdck ,d ch?kk ukS fcLok Hkwfe dk jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ukekUrj.kdj.k jktLo foHkkx ls vius uke djok lds A oknhx.k }kjk ÁLrqr lEiw.kZ okn ds voyksdu oknhx.k dk ;g okn is’k djus dk ,d ek= mn~ns’; mDr d`f”k Hkwfe;ksa dk ukekUrj.k vius uke [kqyokuk gS A ;fn okn esa of.kZr d`f”k Hkwfe;ksa dk ukekUrj.k muds uke gks tkrk gS ;k jktLo deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh muds uke ukekUrj.k [kksy nsrs rks mUgsa ;g okn is’k dj] mRrjkf/kdkj ?kks”k.kk djokus dh vko’;drk gh ugha Fkh A bl Ádkj bl okn dks is’k djus ds ihNs oknhx.k dk ,dek= vk’k; mDr d`f”k Hkwfe;ksa ds ckjs esa vius i{k esa [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks”k.kk djokuk gh ÁdV gksrk gS A

gLrxr Ádj.k esa oknhx.k us tks vuqrks”k pkgk gS og jktLo xzke /kksVh iVokj gYdk dkyknsg esa vkjkth la- 526 jdck ,d ch?kk pkj fcLok] vkjkth la- 482 jdck rhu ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 516 jdck l=kg fcLok] vkjkth la- 515 jdck ,d ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 2621@517 jdck nks ch?kk ikap fcLok] vkjkth la- 554 jdck ,d ch?kk ukS fcLok Hkwfe dk dfFkr iwoZtksa ds mRrjkf/kdjh oknhx.k gksus ds vk/kkj ij muds i{k esa ukekUrj.k [kqyokus ds lEca/k esa gS vFkkZr oknhx.k vius i{k esa mDr vkjkft;kr ds laca/k esa dk’rdkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks”k.kk pkgh gS ftlds QyLo:i jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa mDr d`f”k Hkwfe;ka muds uke vk ldsa A **

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia contended that the learned trial court has seriously erred in returning petitioners’ plaint on the ground of jurisdiction.

6. He submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration simplicitor, without impleading anybody as defendant, as no rival claimant existed vis-a-vis the petitioners. All the plaintiffs are heirs of Class II of the deceased Goma, Bhura etc. He argued that such declaration of rights of inheritance can be made only by a competent civil court. Assailing the findings of the trial court he pointed out with surprise that the Court has returned the petitioners’ plaint, inferring that the petitioners’ intention for getting such declaration was to get Khatedari rights with respect to the agricultural rights vested in Goma, Bhura etc. who died in 1944.

7. Mr. Saruparia submitted that since the deceased Goma, Bhura, Khuma etc. died without leaving any heir of Class I, the petitioners being heirs of Class II were entitled to succeed, for which th