Order

02/01/2025

1. These petitions are filed aggrieved of orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board’) accepting the appeal of respondents-plaintiffs setting aside the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. The brief facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction with regard to the property described in the suit. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2018. The second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs being children of the daughter had no share in the agricultural land as the parties are governed by Mohammedan law. Vide order dated 24.12.2018 the application was accepted and the plaint was rejected. The appeals filed before Appellate Authority were dismissed on 30.08.2019. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner got the land converted for industrial use. The grievance against the conversion order passed during the pendency of the appeal was subject matter of SBCWP No.17960/2019.

3. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Board to decide the appeal expeditiously and in the meantime Smt. Surgi (petitioner in this case) was directed not to alienate the property till the disposal of the appeal. It was further observed that the order of the conversion would be dependent upon the rights of the parties created by decision of the appeal by the Board. The plaintiffs-respondents succeeded in second appeal. The order of the SDO Court rejecting the plaint on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 was set aside.

4. Learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that the parties are governed by Mohammedan law and the children of the daughter cannot claim succession on the agricultural land. The contention is that the land in question was converted for industrial use and therefore the Revenue Courts have lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

5. Learned counsel for private respondents submits that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was not rejected by the SDO Court on the ground of not having jurisdiction qua the land in question.

6. At this stage learned Senior counsel for petitioner on instructions restricts the prayer that as the suit is still to be decided, directions be issued for time bound disposal of the suit. Liberty is sought to make a prayer for an interim protection vis- a- vis the status of conversion order during the pendency of the suit and to raise the issue with regard to maintainability of the suit.

7. In view of the restricted prayer made, learned counsel for the respondents are not able to raise any serious objection.

8. In view of the above the writ petitions are disposed of directing the SDO Court concerned to decide the suit within one year from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. In any case no unwarranted adjournments be granted to either of the party.

9. Needless to say the parties shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas available during the pendency of the suit.

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/35-36 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)