RAMDAS Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revisions petitions at the instance of defendants-petitioners are directed against the order dt. 28/01/2016 passed by the learned trial court by which the application filed by them under Order 7 and Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts noticed for disposal of these petitions are that a civil suit came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the trial court seeking permanent injunction and during pendency of the suit, the defendants-petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying that since the property in question is an agricultural land, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the Civil Suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff-respondent filed reply to the application denying the averments made in the application and submitted that the land in question is not being used for agricultural purposes and there are houses and shops on the land and as far as the vacant land is concerned, construction is going on over it on the land on which no agricultural operation is going on and which is being used as abadi land, the dispute relating to such land can be tried by the Civil Court and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes and prayed for dismissal of the application. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of the rival parties on the said application, dismissed the same vide order impugned observing that the plain and simple language of the plaint is required to be seen at the threshold and on perusal of the plaint, the suit property does not appear to be an agricultural land and has further observed that the question as to whether the land in question is abadi land or agricultural land can be decided after framing of the issues and conclusion of evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that a reading of the plaint shows that the land in dispute is an agricultural land and is recorded in the revenue record as an agricultural land and being an agricultural land, the suit could not have been instituted in the Civil Court and was liable to be dismissed as the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try such revenue matters. It is further contended that the primafacie evidence which came on record clearly show that it is an agricultural land and as such, the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court.