[2025:RJ-JD:50174]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 135/2025 LRs of Ganga Ram S/o Shri Kela

1/1 Navratan S/o Late Shri Ganga Ram, Age 63 years.

1/2 Vishnu S/o Late Shri Ganga Ram, Age 58 years.

1/3 Gopal S/o Late Shri Ganga Ram, Age 55 Years.

All R/o Village Sameliya, Tehsil Mandal District Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus Arjun Lal S/o Shri Kesu, R/o Village Sameliya Tehsil Mandal District Bhilwara Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Vyas Mr. Sameer Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

20/11/2025

1. By way of filing the present civil revision, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that your lordship may be pleased to allow this Civil Revision and the record of the case may be called for and may be examined and the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Mandal, Bhilwara, which passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 136/2024, Arjun V/s LR’s of Ganga Ram S/o Kela, may kindly be quashed and set aside, and the objections filed U/s 47 of CPC may kindly be allowed and the execution proceeding may kindly be quashed and set aside.

….”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners–defendants had filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC before the Executing Court contending that the disputed land is an agricultural land and, therefore, the civil suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was submitted that for seeking any relief in respect of agricultural land, the plaintiffs ought to have approached the revenue Court as a civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. Learned counsel argued that in view of the specific statutory bar contained under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the settled legal position that disputes pertaining to agricultural land fall exclusively within the domain of the revenue Court, the objections filed by the petitioners ought to have been accepted and, consequently, the judgment and decree dated

29.06.2022 is not liable to be executed.

3. Heard.

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit for perpetual injunction before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Mandal, District Bhilwara, alleging that the defendants are forcibly attempting to take possession of the Bara situated in Khasra No.83, which is in their ownership and possession. It was pleaded that the defendants, without having any legal right, had dumped construction material on the site and were attempting to commence foundation work over the Bara in question. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as six issues including an issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit and relief sought.

6. Upon examination of the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Mandal, District Bhilwara, it is evident that issue No.5 pertained to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, decided issue No.5 against the defendants. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred Civil Appeal No.48/2017, Gangaram & Ors. v. Arjun Lal, before the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara. The first appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.06.2022. The learned appellate Court, while considering the objection regarding the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court, examined the matter in detail in paragraphs 20 and 21 of its judgment and affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court.

7. The Second Appeal No.136/2022 titled as “LRs of Gangaram v. Arjun Lal”, filed under Section 100 CPC was also dismissed by a detailed j