CHENARAM Vs. PANCHUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition challenges the order dtd. 10/9/2024 passed by learned Assistant Collector, Bilara, whereby the application of petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected. It also impugns the order dtd. 28/3/2025 passed by learned Board of Revenue, dismissing the petitioner's revision petition.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted revenue suit under Ss. 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking a declaration of rights over land inherited from their father. While contesting the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action since the land stood recorded in the petitioner's favour as far back as 2001, and the suit has been filed in 2022. The learned Assistant Collector, Bilara, rejected this application vide order dtd. 10/9/2024, and the revision petition against the same was dismissed by learned Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 28/3/2025.

(3.) Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both courts below failed to address the specific grounds urged in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He further contends that the suit is not only barred by limitation but is also vexatious, instituted solely to exploit the escalated value of the land in question.