w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Sanganer Agro & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Another v/s Janki Devi & Others

    Civil Revision Petition No. 77 of 2012
    Decided On, 23 January 2013
    At, High Court of Rajasthan
    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
    For the Petitioners: G.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sudesh Bansal, Advocate.


Judgment Text
Bela M.Trivedi, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants No.1 & 2 under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 31st May, 2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No.26, Jaipur Metropolitan (Sanganer) (herein after to be referred as the 'trial Court') rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in the civil suit No. 94/2012.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. GP Sharma for the petitioners that the suit of the respondents No.1 to 3 is for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the agricultural land in question, for which only Revenue Courts would have the jurisdiction in view of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the trial Court has materially erred in not rejecting the plaint of the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Mohar Singh v. Wazir Chand & Ors., (1970) ILR 20 Raj. 400 Mr. Sharma submitted that the jurisdiction of civil Court has been barred under Section 207 read with its explanation and the other provisions contained in the Tenancy Act. However, learned counsel Mr. Bansal for the respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is just and legal. Taking the Court to the contents and relief clause of the plaint, Mr. Bansal submitted that the suit for declaration that the sale deed is null and void, is not covered under any of the provisions contained in the Third schedule to the Act, which would bar the filing of the suit in the civil court Under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act.

3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, in the light of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, it appears that the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking declaration that the sale deed registered on 1.4.1999 in respect of the land in question is null & void. The plaintiffs have also sought for the permanent injunction. It is true that as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, all suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule of the said Act are required to be heard and determined by the Revenue Court only and no Court, other than the Revenue Court can take cognizance of the suit based on the cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any suit or application. Now if the nature of suits as specified in the Third Schedule of the Tenancy Act is seen, there is specific mention about the description of suit in column (3) of the Third Schedule. The learned counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioners has failed to point out as to how the case of the respondents-plaintiffs would fall under any of the description of suits mentioned in the said schedule. His submission to the effect that the explanation to Section 207 would cover the case of the plaintiffs for the rejection of plaint, cannot be countenanced, in as much as the nature of relief claimed in the suit, namely declaration that the sale deed in question is null and void, does not fall under the nature of suits specified in the Third Schedule, and therefore could not be said to be barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act. The trial Court has rightly considered the factual and legal aspect and rejected the application of the petitioners u

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nder Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The impugned order being just and legal does not call for any interference of this Court, more particularly in exercise of limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 115 CPC. 4. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.
O R