(1.) The first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the order dated 29/9/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent-defendant filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit being No.566/2012 (670/2007).
(2.) It appears that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking specific performance of the agreement in question and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, which according to the appellant had ceased to be an agricultural/ khatetdari land. In the said suit after filing the written statement, and framing of issues by the Court, the respondent-defendant had filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 on the ground that the agreement in question was in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and therefore null and void for which specific performance could not be granted. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, allowed the said application vide the impugned order, which is challenged by the appellant in the present appeal.
(3.) Relying upon the various decisions of this Court, it is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.S. Hora for the appellant that there being no bar under the provisions contained in Section 42(b) of the said Act, the plaint could not have been rejected by the Trial Court under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. He has mainly relied upon judgment of this Court in case of Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited vs. Jagdeesh Prasad meena & Ors, 2013 3 WLC(Raj) 215 and further submitted that the said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9781/2013, and the same has been dismissed. Meaning thereby, the said order has been confirmed.