IMPORTANT POINT
Plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses cause of action.

Arun Bhansali, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC has been rejected.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner and the Municipal Board, Rajsamand, inter-alia, with the averments that the land comprising in Khasra No.370 belong to him and in the adjacent Khasra No.371, the petitioner had some land, however, in connivance with the Municipal Board, the petitioner got land belonging to the plaintiff ad measuring 6’ x 160’ converted in his name and was raising construction on the said land and therefore, sought injunction against the defendants.

3. An application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC was filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, claiming that as in the suit, the claim of the plaintiff, is based on the land which according to his submissions is an agriculture land, the suit is barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act’).

4. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the relief has been sought qua the converted land, it cannot be said that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to deal with such a case.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the claim of the plaintiff is based on the fact that the land comprising Khasra No.370, which belong to him continuous to be an agriculture land, therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the said suit and the same was barred under Section 207 of the Act.

6. I have perused the plaint filed alongwith the revision petition.

7. The case of the plaintiff is that the Municipal Board in connivance with the defendants by undertaking proceedings under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has inter-alia converted a piece of land ad measuring 6’ x 160’, which forms part of his agriculture holding and based on said conversion, the defendants were seeking to raise construction on the said land ad measuring 6’ x 160’ also, which in fact belongs to him and therefore, they be restrained from raising the construction.

8. From the averments contained in the plaint, it is apparent that the relief in the suit was being claimed qua the converted land i.e. 6’ x 160’, which the plaintiff claimed to be his agriculture holding. The mere fact that the claim of the plaintiff is that the land was not converted at his instance does not effect the nature of the land, which admittedly stands converted for commercial use. The nature of the land having stand converted into commercial land and the fact that the plaintiff did not claim any declaration regarding the said land as an agriculture land, the suit for injunction was clearly maintainable before the civil court.

9. Consequently, there is no substance in the revision petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.

Civil Revision Petition dismissed.