RAM SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revenue suit came to be filed by the respondent -plaintiff under Sec. 88, 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction but as contended by counsel for petitioner, on the basis of gift -deed, which was not accepted upto the Board of Revenue in the earlier proceedings. After the notice of the present revenue suit came to be served upon the petitioner -defendant, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. placing all the material on record to justify that the respondent -plaintiff is not entitled to claim his share & khatedari rights on the basis of gift -deed, which was not accepted in the earlier proceedings, but that contention was repealed at all the stages by the revenue Courts below on the premise that it is not the stage where his objection could be looked into and is not the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and this is what the Board of Revenue also observed in its order impugned dt. 7th June, 2012. The revenue suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff, admittedly is within the four corners of law and could be examined by the revenue Court and it is not the case of Rant Singh, vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. petitioner that the same was barred by law or no cause of action arises and it is expected from the revenue Courts to examine the plaint and not the objections or the material which the petitioner, as defendant, wanted to place on record as that is always open to examine after in the written statement being filed by the petitioner in the pending revenue suit.

(2.) I have heard counsel for petitioner and also gone through the impugned order and find no manifest error which may require interference. However, it is open for the petitioner to raise objections while filing written statement, if so advised. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.