VIKRAM Vs. BUDDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of order dtd. 17/2/2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') in Civil Original Suit No. 27/2024 (CIS No. 10/24) whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant No.1, stood rejected.

(2.) Vide the application, three grounds were raised by the defendant; first, no cause of action arose to the plaintiffs as the power of attorney which was pleaded to be forged, in the present suit, was relied upon by the plaintiffs themselves in the revenue suit. Second, the land in question was an agricultural land and hence, the jurisdiction to pass a decree for declaration lies with the Revenue Court only. Third, the process in terms of Order 7 Rule 9 and Order 5, CPC while service of notice on the defendant, was not followed.

(3.) However, counsel for the petitioners raised one more ground before this Court to the effect that the plaintiffs were not the recorded Khatedars of the land in question and hence, were required to get their rights declared by the Revenue Court first.