High Court rejected revision challenging trial Court's refusal to dismiss a civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Court held Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not bar suit for cancellation of registered instrument as it is not in Third Schedule.
Revision petition rejected summarily; impugned order of 30.07.2018 upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision No. 115/2018
Vijay Pal S/o Shri Shankar Lal, aged about 25 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o 18 K.D. Tehsil - Gharsana
----Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 6)
[CR-115/2018]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Jain. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Chotia.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
12/11/2018
By the instant revision petition, petitioner-defendant No.17 has assailed order dated 30.07.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Gharsana (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), rejecting his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by first respondent-plaintiff.
In brief, facts of the case are that first respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction before learned trial Court stating therein that his father, Ayodhyalal, being a pong dam oustee was allotted land ad-measuring 6.200 hectare and after his death on 30.06.1975, his uncle Krishan Chandra – father of defendants No.1 to 3 eldest in family, looked
(3 of 6)
[CR-115/2018]
all affairs of the family. On account of non-deposition of instalment, the allotment was cancelled, but was restored by District Collector, vide its order dated 06.09.1996 despite that defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with Patwari Halka got recorded the land in the name of their father Krishan Chandra instead of Ayodhyalal. It is averred in the plaint that though defendants No.1 to 3 were well aware of the fact that plaintiff is also a co-sharer of the land, they got transferred the land in their names after death of Krishan Chandra and subsequently sold the same to defendant No.17 on 09.09.2013. With these averments, plaintiff prayed to declare sale-deed dated 09.09.2013 as null and void. Upon service of summons, defendant No.17 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissing the suit. The application was precisely laid on the ground of jurisdiction. The entire edifice of petitioner’s assertion was that subject-matter of the suit related to agricultural land and as such the suit is barred by law and the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited on account of availability of equally efficacious alternative remedy.
Learned trial Court, after examining the matter arrived at the conclusion that question to hear the matter and jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be decided after recording evidence of both the parties, and thus rejected the application vide order dated 30.07.2018.
Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned trial Court has committed material irregularity and illegality while exercising its jurisdiction in dismissing the application of petitioner. It is urged by learned counsel that
(4 of 6)
[CR-115/2018]
Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act excludes jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits of specific nature. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is classic example of non-exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court with which it is endowed by law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman V/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Committee [(2012) 8 SCC 706].
E. Converso, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff Rakesh Chotia submits that impugned order passed by learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference in exercise of limited scope of judicial review under Section 115 CPC. Learned counsel submits that jurisdiction of civil court under Section 9 itself is very wide and bar of its jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred. Learned counsel has strenuously urged that bar of civil court’s jurisdiction has to be either express or by necessary implication and both these conditions are conspicuously missing in the matter as is borne out from the impugned order, and therefore, the impugned order deserves no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is urged by learned counsel that for cancellation of a registered instrument, jurisdiction vests with the civil court and revenue court cannot exercise such power for cancellation of a registered instrument. Joining issuing with the petitioner on this vital issue, learned counsel would urge that bar of civil court’s jurisdiction envisaged under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 vis-a-vis suit for cancellation of a registered instrument is inapplicable. In
(5 of 6)
[CR-115/2018]
order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:-
Rajendra Kumbhat & Ors. V/s. Smt. Devi & Ors. [2015 (2) RLW 1530 (Raj.)]
Sunil Bhandari & Anr. V/s. Sunil Bhandari & Anr. [2018 (3) RLW 2396 (Raj.)]
Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Sandeep Charan & Ors. [2018 (1) RLW 826 (Raj.)]
Bhanwaroo Khan V/s. Azim Khan [RLW 1992 (2) Raj 233]
Sharda Devi (Smt.) V/s. Iqbal Singh & Ors. [2015 (4) RLW 2936 (Raj.)]
Surendra Kumar & Ors. V/s. Poolwanti Devi & Ors. [2018 (3) WLN 373 (Raj.)]
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the impugned order dated 30.07.2018.
A bare perusal of the sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 makes it amply clear that only those suits triable by the revenue Court specified in the third schedule of the Act are barred before any other court except the revenue court. If Section 207 is read in conjunction with Third Schedule, then it would ipso facto reveal that in Third Schedule of the Act of 1955, there is no mention about a suit for cancellation of a registered instrument. Therefore, on the fact of it, invocation of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 by the petitioner is misplaced and it cannot be said that suit for cancellation of a registered instrument is barred before a civil court within the four corners of Section 207 of the Act of 1955. Even otherwise, Civil Court under Section 9 CPC has ample jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature. The bar of
(6 of 6) [CR-115/2018]
civil court’s jurisdiction has to be express or by necessary implication.
The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society (supra) is clearly distinguishable on the facts the instant case.
As the learned trial Court has examined the matter in right perspective, in my opinion, while rejecting the application of petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it has not committed any illegality or irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction warranting interference in exercise of revisonal jurisdiction.
Consequently, the revision petition fails and the same is
hereby rejected summarily.
a.asopa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act bars civil court jurisdiction in a suit for cancellation of a registered instrument.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Kumbhat & Ors. V/s. Smt. Devi & Ors.Referred
[2015 (2) RLW 1530 (Raj.)]
Sunil Bhandari & Anr. V/s. Sunil Bhandari & Anr.Referred
[2018 (3) RLW 2396 (Raj.)]
Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Sandeep Charan & Ors.Referred
[2018 (1) RLW 826 (Raj.)]
Bhanwaroo Khan V/s. Azim KhanReferred
RLW 1992 (2) Raj 233
Sharda Devi (Smt.) V/s. Iqbal Singh & Ors.Referred
[2015 (4) RLW 2936 (Raj.)]
Surendra Kumar & Ors. V/s. Poolwanti Devi & Ors.Referred
[2018 (3) WLN 373 (Raj.)]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Pal
Ramesh Chandra
The State of Rajasthan
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
