Civil courts lack jurisdiction over agricultural land disputes when a revenue suit is pending, and merits cannot be evaluated at the application stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

ORDER :

1. Instant civil misc. appeal is preferred by appellants defendants aggrieved from judgment dated 15.05.2024 in civil regular appeal no. 4/2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge no.1, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 plaintiff from judgment and decree dated 22.03.2024 in civil suit no. 34/05/2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar was allowed and the matter (civil suit) was remanded back to the trial court.

2. The plaintiff Hamid Khan has filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction before learned Civil Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar against present petitioners and proforma respondent no.2. During pendency of this civil suit an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendant nos. 1 to 5 (present appellants) on the ground that the suit pertains to agriculture land and jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Further, it was stated that the revenue suit titled as “Sahun Vs. Khurshid” is also pending, and parallel civil suit is not maintainable. The trial court considering application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC on 22.03.2024 has allowed the application and held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit. As a result, the suit of respondent plaintiff was rejected.

3. Aggrieved from dismissal of suit on 22.03.2024 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 a regular appeal is filed by plaintiff Hamid Khan and on 15.05.2024, learned appellate court has partially allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2024 and remitted the matter to the trial court.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants defendants submits that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit in a matter relating to agriculture land wherein a revenue suit is also pending before the revenue court. He further submitted that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is filed on the ground that the suit is barred by law and same is not maintainable before the civil court. He also placed reliance upon judgment in case of Lal Singh Jhala Vs. Panna lal passed by a Co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur (Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1644/2012, order dated 22.08.2016) and submitted that the trial court following the law and considering the subject matter has allowed the application and rejected the suit. He referred the provision under Section 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and submitted that the subject matter and the relief claimed by plaintiff is maintainable only before revenue court and the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under the law. He further justified the order passed by the trial court and submitted that looking to subject matter and nature of land the trial court has rightly rejected the suit as same is barred by law. He further submitted that the appellate court ignoring the legal position has allowed the appeal of plaintiff and unnecessarily remitted back the matter to trial court for consideration on merits which is per se illegal order and contrary to judgment of this Hon’ble Court. He also referred the pending revenue suit and submitted that a status quo order has already been passed by the revenue court and same is still in force, therefore, the order of appellate court is bad in the eye of law. Learned Senior Advocate has further referred the jamabandi of suit property and submitted that the subject matter is a revenue land and same is admitted from the facts of the case. At last, he referred the report of Tehsildar based on report of area patwari and submitted that the land in question is an agriculture land so the suit is not maintainable and the appellate court has committed serious error while allowing the appeal against the order passed by the trial court.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 plaintiff and submitted that while considering applic