CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR AND ORS. Vs. RAMNAGAR GRAH NIRMAN SEHKARI SAMITI LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants, challenging the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.07/11, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.

(2.) It appears that the respondent No.1, the original plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants for restraining them from taking the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the khasra Nos.440 and 331. In the said suit, the petitioners-defendants had filed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law as transpiring from the averments made in the plaint. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by learned counsel Dr. P.C. Jain for the petitioners that the respondent-plaintiff had stated in the plaint itself that the lands in questions were under acquisition, and therefore the civil court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the said suit. Relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court, he submitted that the land acquisition proceedings could not have been challenged in the civil court by way of suit. The Court does not find any substance in the said submissions. As transpiring from the averments made in the plaint, according to the plaintiff, the lands in question were released from the acquisition proceedings, however the petitioners-defendants were out to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the said lands. The respondent-plaintiff has not challenged any acquisition proceedings in the suit. Even otherwise, it would be a matter of evidence to be led by both the parties as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any law which would bar the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff.