OM PRAKASH Vs. DEEPARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid Civil Revision Petitions under sec. 115 of CPC have been filed by the petitioners-defendents against the order dtd. 23/3/2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pali in Civil Original Suit Nos.64/2014, 67/2014, 69/2014, 70/2014, 66/2014, 68/2014 and 65/2014.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, there was a specific objection on behalf of the defendents-petitioners that the suit property is an agricultural land and therefore, the civil court does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, however, the learned trial court without considering this aspect of the matter has rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the controversy involved in the present revision petition is no more res-integra as the co-odinate Bench of this Court in Hastimal & Ors. v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.84/2017) decided on 20/11/2020, has held that where the suit pertains to an agricultural land, the cognizance of it by any court other than a revenue court is barred under the provisions of Sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the applications under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.