ORDER :

M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.

With the appearance of Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator-respondent, Caveat No.51/2026 is discharged.

1. The instant revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hiranagar, Kathua in File No.82/Civil, by virtue of which, application moved by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. The respondent-Chuni Lal filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants including the petitioners herein from causing any sort of interference in any manner and by any mode, in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land, measuring 11 kanals 13 marlas, comprising of Khasra No.1194, situate at Bhaiya, Tehsil Hiranagar and District Kathua, including by not creating obstruction in cultivation, encroaching upon and grabbing the same and causing ouster of the plaintiff therefrom forcibly either themselves or through anybody else.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 5, 6 and 7 namely Champa Devi, Sohan Singh and Radha Rani, (petitioners herein), moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint, pleading therein that the dispute raised in the suit pertains to alleged cultivating possession and tenancy rights, which are matters exclusively triable by the competent revenue authorities under the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, as Sections 25 and 27 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts from entertaining, deciding or dealing with any such question; that the plaintiff had an equal efficacious remedy under the provisions of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act to approach the Tehsildar or Collector for redressal of his grievance rather than invoking the civil court’s jurisdiction.

4. After entertaining objections to the application filed by the plaintiff/non applicant (respondent herein), the trial court rejected the application vide impugned order holding that the suit does not appear to be barred by law i.e. J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.

5. Aggrieved of the order impugned passed by the trial court, the petitioners have challenged the same through the medium of the present civil revision moved under Section 115 of the CPC raising the ground that the trial court has misdirected itself by holding that the court had jurisdiction in the matter and overlooked the arguments raised before it, particularly, in view of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in a case titled ‘Jagtu & Ors. V. Badri & Ors.’ reported as 1979 KLJ 172.

6. Heard and considered.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent as plaintiff had pleaded in his plaint that the land in question was under his cultivating possession, meaning thereby, that the land, being agricultural land, was governed by Agrarian Reforms Act, which provides efficacious remedy under Section 19(3)(e) of the Agrarian Reforms Act to move a Revenue Authority seeking the relief which has been pleaded in the plaint, as the trial court lacked jurisdiction in the matter in view of the authoritative judgment of this court in a case titled ‘Jagtu & Ors. V. Badri & Ors.’ reported as 1979 KLJ 172. It was finally prayed that the impugned order passed by the trial court be set aside, holding that the plaint is liable to be rejected and the suit before the Trial Court be dismissed.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the impugned order has been passed by the trial court perfectly in consonance with the legal principles and does not warrant for any interference by this court. He has argued that after the Re-organization of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act has also been amended and the relevant sub-section (3) of Section 19 has been omitted and the argument raised by the learned counsel for the