HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 8/2021

1.

District Collector, Rajsamand

2.

Mining Engineer, Rajsamand

3.

Director, Rajsamand

----Petitioners

Versus

Magana S/o Naru Ji, Khatamala, Tehsil And Dis. Rajsamand

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. D.S. Jasol.

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

09/02/2021

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

19.06.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Rajsamand, whereby, the

application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

has been rejected.

The suit was filed by the respondent – plaintiff seeking

declaration and injunction in relation to show-cause notice dated

16.06.2020 issued to him regarding illegal excavation and why

penalty be not imposed.

The application was filed inter-alia on the ground that the

suit has not been properly valued, court fees paid are deficient.

The plaintiff has alternate remedy under provisions of Rajasthan

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (‘the Rules’) and, therefore

the suit was barred and provisions of Section 80 CPC have not

been complied with.

Though no reply to the application was filed, the same was

contested by the plaintiff.

The trial court, after hearing the parties, by its impugned

judgment came to the conclusion that as the plaintiff had urgency,

(2 of 3)

[CR-8/2021]

in terms of provisions of Section 80(2) CPC, the suit cannot be

rejected. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred and as

only a show-cause notice has been issued, the objection

pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction also had no substance, which

could only be decided after the evidence was led by the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make

submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the

application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was reiterated

that the suit was barred under provisions of Section 41(h) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘the Act’), as the plaintiff had alternate

remedy under the provisions of the Rules and as such the trial

court was not justified in negating the submissions made in this

regard.

Further submissions were made that the valuation of the suit

was not proper and as such looking to the proper valuation, the

proceedings ought to have been filed before higher court and the

trial court had no jurisdiction in this regard and, therefore, on that

count also, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner and have perused the material available on

record.

The provisions of Section 41(h) of the Act, apparently would

have no application, inasmuch as, the challenge laid is to the

show-cause notice and admittedly against the show-cause notice,

except for appearing before the authorities, no remedy has been

provided under the Rules and as such the plea raised in this

regard has no substance.

So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is concerned,

admittedly based on the quantum of demand raised in the notice,

(3 of 3)

[CR-8/2021]

the jurisdiction of the court cannot be challenged at this stage and

as such the plea raised in this regard also has no substance.

Consequently, no case for interference in the order impugned

is made out. There is no substance in the revision petition. The

same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

23-pradeep/-