JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.4, Alwar (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.34/05/2021, Old No. (34/152/2009), (34/149/2011) whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/defendants (for brevity, "the defendants") under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for revocation of the registered gift deed dated 29.07.2008 alleging that it was got executed fraudulently by the defendants from the plaintiff no.1 of his agricultural land. Therein, the defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC raising objection as to its maintainability being hit by Section 207 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for brevity, "the Act of 1955"). The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2022, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendants submits that while dismissing their application, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed for declaration pertaining to agricultural land in view of the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the order dated 30.06.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by them under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC be allowed. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgements:-

(1)Pyare Lal v. Shubendra Pilania (Minor) Thro' Natural Guardian (Father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors.: 2019 DNJ (SC) 115

(2)Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 366

(3)Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.: 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 52

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that since the suit has been filed seeking revocation of the gift deed, a voidable document, the Civil Court only has jurisdiction to hear the matter. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the civil revision petition. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgement:-

(1)Mahendra Kumar v. Smt. Maya Devi: 2021 (1) DNJ 174

5. Heard. Considered.

6. If the nature of document under challenge in the suit is voidable even if it pertains to agricultural land, it is a well settled legal principle that only the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain it and the bar under Section 207 of the Act of 1955 is not attracted. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Mahendra Kumar (supra), relying upon an earlier judgement of this Court in case of Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Sandeep Charan & Ors.: (2018) 2 DNJ Rajasthan 421, has succinctly held that where challenge involved in the suit pertains to a voidable document involving even an agricultural land, the Civil Court has jurisdiction and not the revenue court.

7. Indisputably, since, in the present case, in the plaint, the gift deed is alleged to be voidable; in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application filed by the defendants.

8. In view of the aforesaid findings, the other judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants need no consideration.

9. Resultantly, this civil revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

10. However, looking to the life of the suit, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite its conclusion.