Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prakash Gupta, J.
Bhawani Shankar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Kesar Bai & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 3/2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021
[REVISIONS] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE] - [The court addressed the dismissal of a defendants' application under Section 11 & 151 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, emphasizing the need for the trial court to consider jurisdictional objections under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, ultimately remanding the case for proper adjudication.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit to declare a sale deed null and void and sought a permanent injunction. The defendants challenged this by filing an application under Section 11 & 151 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to address the jurisdictional objections raised by the defendants regarding the applicability of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to Revenue Courts for such matters.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the defendants' application without addressing the jurisdictional objections under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court must consider jurisdictional issues raised by the defendants, as the Revenue Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, necessitating a fresh examination of the application.
Result: The revision petition was partly allowed, the trial court's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the defendants' application.
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Section 11 & 151 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaring the sale deed dated 20.05.1964 null and void and permanent injunction.
3. The defendants filed an application under Section 11 & 151 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In para 1 and 4 of the application following averments were made:
4. The trial Court vide its order dated 10.12.2020 has dismissed the defendants application under Section 11 & 151 read with Section Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hench this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that while considering the objections raised by the defendants in their application, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application filed under Section 11 & 151 read with Section under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon an order dated 03.02.2020 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.231/2019 titled as Ramlal Yadav and Anr. And Mahesh and Ors.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs supports the impugned order and stated that the same to be just and proper.
7. Heard. Considered.
8. From a perusal of the application filed by the defendants it is clear that specific objections was raised by the defendants in their application for declaring the sale deed null and void and for permanent injunction. Under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act only the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the suit but the trial Court did not deal with this aspect of the matter and decide the application with the following observations:
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is partly allowed; the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with the direction to decide the application under Section 11 & 151 read with Section Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants afresh after dealing with the objections raised by the defendants in their application, more particularly in para 1 and 4 of the application.
The jurisdictional objections under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must be considered by the trial court when determining the validity of a sale deed and related injunctions.
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over agricultural disputes already pending in Revenue Courts, affirming the exclusivity of jurisdiction in such matters.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between void and voidable documents and their impact on the jurisdiction of revenue and civil courts in cases involving agricult....
Reliefs for ownership disputes, including cancellation of a sale deed, fall under Civil Court jurisdiction, not Rent Tribunal jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the relevant facts to be looked into are the averments in the plaint, and the pleas ....
Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as amendment of pleadings.
Issues of limitation and sale deed validity require full trial; defenses are not assessed at the preliminary dismissal stage under CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the allegations in the plaint make a case of the document being voidable, only the civil court would have jurisdiction to deal with the sai....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
