JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as “the Trial Court”), whereby application of the petitioner under Order-7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the instant revision petition are that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 7 to 14 (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) before the learned Trial Court claiming the following reliefs:-

“i) Decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering or causing an interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land measuring 800 kanals comprised in Khasra Nos.10 min, 16. 18, 29, 37, 38, 40, 42, 75, 85, 113, 126, 134, 137, 143, 170/1, 171, 182, 190, 180, 196, 197, 200, 202, 211, 213 min, 215, 216/1, 220 min, 226, 227, 252, 254 min, 255, 255/1, 522/256, 305 min, 306, 388, 389, 396, 410, 307/2, 494/400, 451/358, 257, 257 min, 479/387 situated at Village Jogian, Tehsil Nagri District Kathua;

ii) Decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 from granting Environmental Clearance to the three mining plans/projects submitted by defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 8 hectares, 9.65 hectares and 9.85 hectares on the banks of river Ujh at Village Jogian, Tehsil Nagri, District Kathua, without first demarcating the land held by plaintiffs and that proposed by defendant No.1 on spot;

iii) Decree of Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 to 9 from further processing the case of defendant No.1 for grant of mining lease in respect of the aforesaid land proposed by him at Village Jogian, Tehsil Nagri, District Katua, unless and until the demarcation of lands of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is undertaken on spot; and

iv) Decree of mandatory injunction, directing the respondent No.7 to undertake demarcation of the aforesaid 800 kanals of land held by the plaintiffs in Khasra Nos.10 min, 16. 18, 29, 37, 38, 40, 42, 75, 85, 113, 126, 134, 137, 143, 170/1, 171, 182, 190, 180, 196, 197, 200, 202, 211, 213 min, 215, 216/1, 220 min, 226, 227, 252, 254 min, 255, 255/1, 522/256, 305 min, 306, 388, 389, 396, 410, 307/2, 494/400, 451/358, 257, 257 min, 479/387, situated at Village Jogina, Tehsil Nagri District Kathua as well as the demarcation of land proposed by defendant No.1 for grant of mining lease.

v) Decree of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant No.1 to modify/correct the GPS co-ordinates indicated by him in his mining plans submitted in respect of land measuring 8 hectares, 9.65 hectares and 9.85 hectares on the banks of river Ujh at Village Jogian, Tehsil Nagri, District Kathua, so as to exclude the land held by petitioners and to further clearly indicate in his mining plans, such a passage to be used by defendant No.1 for transportation of minerals as doe snot pass through the aforesaid land held by plaintiffs.”

3. The case of the plaintiffs, as set up in the plaint, is that the suit land measuring 800 kanals in respect of which relief is being claimed against the defendants, particularly, defendant No.1/ petitioner, belongs to plaintiffs and that they are in possession of the said land. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 has gained possession of 613 kanals of land in the same village but in a different khewat number. He has been permitted by the official respondents to undertake mining activities in his aforesaid land. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 cannot access or reach the area in respect of which he has been granted mining lease without trespassing upon the aforesaid land of the plaintiffs. It is also alleged that in order to reach the mining site for the purposes of transportation of minor