Allowed

Smt. Mamta W/O Shri Chhitarmal v. Shri Khemchand Prajapati S/O Late Sh. Mangal Singh

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024CR/58/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition allowed setting aside impugned order dismissing Order VII Rule 11 CPC application. High Court held suit for permanent injunction on agricultural land barred by Section 207 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, following SC precedents (Pyarelal, Dahiben). Suit dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; order dated 05.01.2024 set aside; application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed; suit for injunction dismissed.

Smt. Mamta W/O Shri Chhitarmal Vs Shri Khemchand… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2424:N-JP:13205]

¶2

.ir.~~~rr~rf c+* ,'.+ +fbW <- .&%@ ?A **HIGH COURT OF BENCH JU~I@&TURE** &+ **A,.PUR FOR RAJASTHAN** k*>, d

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 58/2024

¶5

1. Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Chhitarmal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o P. No. 3, Krishna Colony, Jonsgang Gadhi Maliyan Road, Ajmer.

¶6

2. Smt. Taruna Palria W/o Shri Bhagwan Palria S/o Late Shri Suvalalji, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Gadhi Maliyan, Jonsganj, Ajmer. Through Power Of Attorney Bhagwan Singh Palaria S/o Heera Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Gadhi Maliyan Road, Jonsganj, Ajmer.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Khemchand Prajapati S/o Late Sh. Mangal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ravan Ki Bagichi, Ashaganj Road, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya For Respondent(s) : Ms. Khusbhu Kothari

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/03/2024

¶13

1 Instant revision petition is preferred by petitionersldefendants aggrieved from order dated

¶14

05.01.2024 in civil suit no. 42712023 passed by learned Civil 0

¶15

Judge, Ajmer, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel fat petitioner submits that the suit property in this case is an agriculture land and same was mentioned in Para no.1 of the plaint. He further submitted r, that plaintiff has sought. permanent injunction on agriculture land, therefore, the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He further relied upon judgment in

¶17

case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through

¶18

Natural Guardian; (2019),3 SCC 692.

¶19

[~024:RJ-~~:132051

¶20

[CR-58120241

¶21

3. Aforesaid con'tention posed by learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the application was dismissed by the trial court observing that the objection can be decided after considering the pleadings of the parties and framing the issues. He further submits that the suit property is not an agriculture land rather it is situated in dense area, therefore, the suit is maintainable before the trial court. He further placed reliance upon judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rajendra Meena vs Harendra Kumar And Anr.; (S.B Civil Revision Petition No. 173/2015 order dated 07.10.2016).

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This revision petition is preferred against dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases including Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtea (2003) 1 SCC 557, I.T.C. Limited Vs. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal; 1998 (2) SCC 70, Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 held that at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC a meaningful reading of the plaint is required. Further at this stage, if suit is barred by law, then same is required to be dismissed at preliminary stage and further trial is not required.

[CR-58120241

[2024:RJ-JP:13205]

Cbc, ... 4,

In case of Pyarelal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of filing of civil suit with respect to agriculture land and provision of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and observed that in wake of prohibition under Section 207 and 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the plaintiff has no right to seek relief from the civil court.

¶28

A perusal of plaint indicated that in Para no.1 of the plaint plaintiff has stated the description of property as under:

¶29

Further, in para no.3, the fact is also mentioned that Khasra nos. 1016, 1015, 1006, 1011 1044, 1045, 275912005 and 1014, 1013 was recorded in favour of Syed Osaf Ali and Naseeb Fatma but due to inadvertence of revenue officials, name of Raesul Hussain was recorded for Khara nos. 1016 and 1045. A relief for permanent injunction was sought against present petitionersldefendants.

¶30

A perusal of record clearly indicated that the suit propcirty. is an agriculture land for which suit for permanent injunction is filed. The plaintiff claimed that due to some mistake in revenue record, the name of Raesul Hussain was

¶31

[2024:RJ-JP:13205]

¶32

[CR-58120241

¶33

recorded. Herein, a peru int clearly indicated that another dispute was also filed before the revenue court. The Revenue Court is competent enough to grant permanent injunction in cases of agriculture land.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent(s) has referred the judgment in case of Rajendra Meena (supra) wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the material on record was of the opinion that whether a suit is maintainable or not can be considered at the time of framing the issue but Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansali (supra) and also in case of Pyarelal (supra) has held that if a suit is not maintainable, then, it is not necessary to frame the issues and same is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule ll(d) of CPC, at preliminary stage.

¶35

Having considered aforesaid, the instant suit is not maintainable in wake of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pyarelal (supra), as the suit property is an agriculture land and the injunction can be sought from the revenue court. Thus, the 'trial court has committed serious error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

¶36

In view of aforesaid, instant revision petition is liable to be allowed and the order dated 05.01.2024 in civil suit no. - 42712023 is liable to be set aside.

12024:RJ-JP:13205]

[CR-58120241

&n*

As a result, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 05.01.2024 is set aside and the application. under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed and the suit for injunction preferred by respondent plaintiff is hereby dismissed.

¶41

No order.as to costs.

¶42

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶43

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶44

CHETNA BEH~ANI /34

Smt. Mamta W/O Shri Chhitarmal v. Shri Khemchand Prajapati S/O Late Sh. Mangal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamta W/O Shri Chhitarmal v. Shri Khemchand Prajapati S/O Late Sh. Mangal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Lal Son of Shri Bhura Ram, Vs Ram Lal Son of Shri Bhura Ram

Hajari Lal S/O Daulatram Vs Union of India

Kailash Chand Gurawa S/O Late Shri Balu Ji Vs Smt. Tara Devi W/O Late Shri Munna Lal Ji (Deceased)

Rajaram @ Raju S/O Basanta Ram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Singh Son of Shri Chatar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Jain Vs Lalita Devi