HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 140/2021

1.

Mannu Ram Meena S/o Sh. Kanchan Ram Meena, Aged

About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Danpur, Tehsil Raini,

Distt. Alwar.

2.

Dharamchand Meena S/o Sh. Kanchan Ram Meena,

Resident Of Village Danpur, Tehsil Raini, Distt. Alwar.

----Petitioners

Versus

Kailash Chand S/o Madan Lal, Resident Of Raini, District Alwar.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Hukum Chand Saini

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

Order Reserved on

::

31.1.2023

Order Pronounced on

::

01.02.2023

This civil revision petition u/s 115 CPC filed by the petitioners

against the order dt.8.7.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Rajgarh,

District Alwar in Civil Suit No.48/2021 titled as Kailash Chand vs.

Mannu Ram & anr.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent

had filed a civil suit before Civil Judge, Rajgarh for mandatory and

permanent injunction for removal of construction in khata No.482,

khasra No.2512/0.18 against the petitioners. Learned counsel for

the petitioners also submits that respondent in his plaint clearly

stated that he is recorded cultivator of 1/3 part of the property in

question. As per jamabandi, respondent stated that petitioners are

raising construction and they have constructed the water tank in

the agricultural land in question. Learned counsel for the

(2 of 3)

[CR-140/2021]

petitioners also submits that petitioners have filed an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC read with Section 207 Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 before the trial court. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submits that suit filed by the respondent is barred

by jurisdiction because suit relating to agricultural land and civil

court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit as per section 207

of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act but trial court wrongly rejected the

application filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submits that on the same facts, respondent has

filed the suit before the revenue court but said suit was dismissed

for want of prosecution.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the upon

the following judgments: (1) Rama Kant Khetan vs. Ram Het

Gupta & ors. reported in 1985 LawSuit (Raj.)699 and Hastimal and

ors. vs. Mrs. Pushpa Devi and ors. 2021 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 297.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and

submitted that respondent has sought relief of permanent

injunction and mandatory injunction, these reliefs can only be

granted by civil court. So, trial court rightly disallowed the

application filed by the petitioners.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondent.

It is an admitted position that as per the averments of the

plaint, respondent sought relief for mandatory and permanent

injunction for removal of the construction in khata No.482, khasra

No.2512/0.18 against the petitioners. It is also admitted position

(3 of 3)

[CR-140/2021]

that property in question is agricultural land as per section 207 of

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, civil court had no jurisdiction for

adjudication of the suit regarding agricultural land. So, in my

considered opinion, trial court wrongly dismissed the application

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 207 Rajasthan

Tenancy Act filed by the petitioners.

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is

allowed and order dt. 8.7.2021 passed by the trial court is set

aside. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with

Section 207 Rajasthan Tenancy Act filed by the petitioners is

allowed. Plaint filed by the respondent shall stand rejected.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 54.