[2023:RJ-JP:31889]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 228/2019

Banwari S/o Bihari, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Sirod Kalan, Tehsil

Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

----Defendant/Petitioner

Versus

Anup S/o Meharchand, R/o Sirod Kalan Tehsil Mundawar, District

Alwar (Rajasthan)

----Plaintiff-Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment

31/10/2023

This revision petition is preferred against the order dated

03.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mundawar, District

Alwar (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Civil Suit

No.34/84/2015 whereby, an application filed by the

petitioner/defendant (for brevity, “the defendant”) under Order 7

Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff

(for brevity, “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for mandatory injunction

and permanent injunction against the defendant stating therein

that the defendant has encroached upon a part of his agricultural

land raising construction of a 3 ft. high boundary wall. Therein, the

defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

Section 151 CPC raising objection as to maintainability of the suit

on the grounds inter alia that it is hit by Section 207 of the

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, “the Act of 1955”). The

application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide

order dated 03.05.2019, impugned herein.

[2023:RJ-JP:31889]

(2 of 3)

[CR-228/2019]

Assailing the order dated 03.05.2019, learned counsel for

the defendant submits that the learned trial Court did not

appreciate that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff in

respect of the agricultural land could not have been entertained by

the Civil Court in view of bar contained under Section 207 of the

Act of 1955. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be

allowed, the order dated 03.05.2019 be quashed and set aside

and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

Section 151 CPC be allowed.

None for the respondent despite service.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the plaint placed on record as Annexure-1 along

with the memo of revision petition reveals that a suit for

mandatory injunction and permanent injunction has been filed in

respect of an agricultural land.

Section 207 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:

“Sec. 207. Suits and applications

cognizable by revenue court only.— (1) All

suits and application of the nature specified in the

Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a

revenue court.

(2) No court other than a revenue court shall

take cognizance of any such suit or application or

of any suit or application based on a cause of

action in respect of which any relief could be

obtained by means of any such suitor application.

Explanation— If the cause of action is one in

respect of which relief might be granted by the

revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked

for from the civil Court is greater than, or

additional to, or is not identical with, that which the

revenue court could have granted.”

[2023:RJ-JP:31889]

(3 of 3)

[CR-228/2019]

Indisputably, the suit for injunction finds place in 3^rd

Schedule of the Act and in view thereof, Section 207 of the Act of

1955 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such suit.

A perusal of the order impugned dated 03.05.2019 reveals

that it has been passed without taking into consideration this vital

aspect of the matter. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed.

The order dated 03.05.2019 is quashed and set aside.

Resultantly, the application filed by the defendant under

Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC stands allowed and the

plaint stands rejected.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/23