[2025:RJ-JP:31089]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 116/2025

1. Phoolaram, Aged About 68 Years, S/o Shri Boduram, R/o Village Sihori, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

2. Bholuram, S/o Shri Boduram, R/o Village Sihori, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

3. Gyarsilal, S/o Shri Boduram, R/o Village Sihori, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

4. Jagdish, S/o Shri Boduram, R/o Village Sihori, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

5. Dhuda, S/o Shri Boduram, R/o Village Sihori, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

6. Hanmaan, S/o Shri Boduram, R/o Village Sihori, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan ----Petitioners-Defendants Versus

1. Bhagwan Sahay S/o Shri Nonda, R/o Village Sihori, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan ----Respondent-Plaintiff

2. State of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Sikar

3. Land Holders, Tehsildar Srimadhopur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 12/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-

defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur, District-Sikar (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 471/2014 by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court mentioning therein that the suit is related to pasture land and plaintiff wanted to declare the way in it. So, the civil Court had not jurisdiction to try it but the trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on account of jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that suit filed by the plaintiff is for easementary right. So, civil court had only jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff.

It is an admitted position that the plaintiff sought the declaration with regard to way from the pasture land. In my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in entertaining the suit with regard to pasture land. Revenue Court had only jurisdiction to try it. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed;

the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by jurisdiction.

It also came to the knowledge of this Court that both the defendants and plaintiff had encroached upon the pasture land. So, the defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are directed to remove the encroachment of the defendants as well as plaintiff from the pasture land.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/77