PYARE LAL AND ORS Vs. SONA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition filed by the petitioners -defendants under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 20/2/2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 78 of 2003, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners -defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.1 -plaintiff has filed the suit before the Trial Court seeking declaration to the effect that the decree dated 30/09/1991 passed by the S.D.O., Fatehpur Shekhawati in Revenue Suit No. 127/1991, having been obtained by exercising the fraud was null and void, and seeking declaration that the plaintiff had 1/2 shares in the agriculture lands in question and for permanent injunction. It has been alleged in the plaint inter -alia that the petitioners -defendants had no right, title or interest in the agriculture lands in question, however, the Revenue Suit No.127 of 1991 was got decreed in their favour by committing the fraud and forgery, and they also got the mutation entries done in respect of the said lands. The present petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 16 resisted the suit by filing the written -statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The Trial Court had framed the issues from the pleadings of the parties, and when the matter was fixed for the cross -examination of the plaintiff by the petitioners -defendants, the petitioners filed the application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction, and only the Revenue Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. N.K. Tiwari for the petitioners, pressing into service the provisions contained in the Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that the reliefs claimed in the suit could be dealt with only by the Revenue Court, and therefore, the Civil Suit in the Civil Court was barred under Section 256 of the said Act. He also submitted that if the respondent -plaintiff was aggrieved by the decree passed by the Revenue Court, he could have filed the appeal under the said Act, and not the Civil Suit in the Civil Court. Mr. Tiwari has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Rukma And Ors. vs. Deva Ram,2011 1 DNJ 96to submit that the suit filed to cancel the compromise and the decree passed by the SDO Court is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC.