MEENA SHARMA Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR PORWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions and two revision petitions are directed against the order dated 24/8/2007 passed by learned trial court, whereby, the applications of the Petitioners; Smt. Manisha and Smt. Meena Sharma under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned trial court. The review petitions were filed by the Defendant-Petitioners against the said order and that too came to be rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 28/11/2007.

(2.) Being aggrieved of these two orders, two writ petitions and two revision petitions have been filed by the Defendant Petitioners.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Vinay Jain submitted that in view of bar under Sub-section (10) of Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any suit or proceeding questioning the order made under Sub-section (5) passed by the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government, the Respondent-Plaintiff, Rajendra Kumar Porwal, if he was aggrieved by the order passed in favour of the Defendant Petitioner on 20/7/2007 (Annex.2 in writ petition No. 3670/2008), then he could have filed an appeal under Sub-section (7) of Section 90B of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner.