##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 52/2026

Chittarmal Samota Son Of Rajuram and Ors.

----Petitioners

Versus

Chittar Mal Son Of Jagganath Prasad and Ors.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranav Pareek

Mr. Anurag Gupta

Mr. Kshitiz Sharma

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

04/02/2026

1. While impugning the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar in Civil

Suit No.143/2025 titled "Chittarmal Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.",

wherein the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC by

the petitioners/Defendants No. 5, 6, 7 and 9 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Court below has erred in rejecting the application filed under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC without considering the fact that the

suit property is an agricultural property bearing Khasra No.

4817/936 situated at Village Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh,

District Sikar. Learned counsel further submits that the relief

claimed in the present suit squarely falls within the Third Schedule

appended to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therefore, in view

of the bar contained in Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,

1955, which specifically provides that all suits and applications in

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 10:23:46 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 12:40:07 AM)

(2 of 3) [CR-52/2026]

the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and

determined by the Revenue Court and no Court other than the

Revenue Court shall take cognizance of said suit. Therefore, the

present suit is barred by law and the same is not triable by the

present civil court. It would be apt to reproduce Third Schedule of

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 as under:-

S.No. Section of Act Description of Limitation Time from Proper Court/

suit, period period Court Fees Officer

application or begins to Competent

appeal run to dispose

of

8. 91 Suit for None None One Assistant

declaration of Rupee Collector

any other

right

xxxx

22. 179 Suit for One year When the One Rupee Assistant

compensation damage is Collector

or injunction done or

or the repair waste

of damage or begins or

waste condition

is broken

xxxx

23-C 188 Suit for Three When the One Rupee Assistant

perpetual years cause of Collector

injunction action

arises

3. He further submits that the learned Court below seriously

erred in overlooking the explicit provisions of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 while deciding the application filed under Order

7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Thus, the court below has erred in passing

the impugned order.

4. Heard.

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, issue notices to the

respondents.

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 10:23:46 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 12:40:07 AM)

(3 of 3) [CR-52/2026]

6. Notices be filed in two sets and upon filing the same, one set

be sent by ordinary post and another by registered post,

returnable within a period of six weeks.

7. List the matter after six weeks.

8. In the meanwhile and until further orders, the proceedings of

the Civil Suit No.143/2025 titled "Chittarmal Vs. Vinod Kumar &

Ors.", pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, shall remain stayed.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

SOURAV /RAHUL/4

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 10:23:46 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 12:40:07 AM)