Dismissed¶30

Dhaniram S/O Bhagmal, v. Satpal Yadav S/O Lal Singh Yadav

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2025CR/36/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint; jurisdiction of Civil Court over right of way / public pathway suits; bar under Section 207 read with Section 256 Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955; Section 188 Rajasthan Tenancy Act injunction before SDO; parallel revenue suit and civil suit on different subject matter; no perversity or illegality in trial court order; revision petition dismissed; Civil Judge Bhiwadi; SDO Tijara; Khasra Nos. 420, 421, 422; 10 feet wide public way; permanent injunction; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; Ashok Kumar Jain, J.; 07/03/2025.

What did the court decide?

A civil suit for right of way or public pathway may be filed before the Civil Court, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in that regard is not a debatable issue. ¶29

Dhaniram S/O Bhagmal, Vs Satpal Yadav S/O Lal Singh Yadav — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil suit before the Civil Court was barred under Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in view of the earlier revenue suit under Section 188 before the SDO, so that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC ought to have been allowed and the plaint rejected.

¶21

Court's answer

A civil suit for right of way or public pathway may be filed before the Civil Court, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in that regard is not a debatable issue.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The revenue suit (under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) and the civil suit (for a 10 feet wide public way) are on different subject matter; therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶29

Key takeaways

There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (Rajasthan HC, Jaipur Bench; Ashok Kumar Jain, J.; decided 07/03/2025): Petitioner-defendant challenged dismissal of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dated 11.07.2023 by the Civil Judge, Bhiwadi, in Civil Suit No.36/2023 instituted by respondent No.1 for permanent injunction restraining obstruction/narrowing of a 10 feet wide public way. Petitioner argued the civil suit was barred under Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 because a prior Revenue Suit No.57/2023 under Section 188 of that Act (Khasra Nos. 420-422, Rakba 0.39 hectare) was pending before the SDO, Tijara, in which no road or public pathway was mentioned. Held: a civil suit for right of way or public pathway properly lies before the Civil Court and its jurisdiction is not debatable; the two suits concern different subject matter; hence the Trial Court rightly rejected the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application and its order suffers from no perversity or illegality. Revision petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous application disposed of. No monetary reliefs involved.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:10958]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 36/2024

¶4

Dhaniram S/o Bhagmal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Saaken Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Satpal Yadav S/o Lal Singh Yadav, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶8

Smt. Mukesh W/o Dhaniram, R/o Saaken Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Smt. Rampati W/o Ramratan, R/o Saaken Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶10

Bhiwadi Antigrated Development Authority, (Beeda), Bhiwadi, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan Through Chief Executive Officer(C.e.o).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sain for Mr. Aayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

07/03/2025

¶16

Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-defendant aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 11.07.2023 in Civil Suit No.36/2023 by learned Civil Judge, Bhiwadi, District Alwar.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction before learned Civil Judge and prior to filing of this suit, a revenue suit was also filed before the SDO for same relief. He further submits that suit filed before

[2025:RJ-JP:10958]

[CR-36/2024]

(2 of 3)

the Civil Court is barred under Section 207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, but learned Trial Court without considering the provision of law has dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶22

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff and he submitted that both the suits were filed for different reliefs. He submits that suit before the Civil Court was filed for 10 feet wide road whereas suit before SDO was under Section 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. At last, he submitted that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶23

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. Facts giving rise to present revision petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction regarding a public way to restrain defendants including present petitioner, from narrowing or causing obstruction. During pendency of this civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed and same was dismissed.

¶24

A perusal of record indicates that three persons including respondent No.1 have filed a Revenue Suit No.57/2023 before SDO, Tijara, District Alwar for injunction under Section 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with regard to agricultural land Khasra No.420 Rakba 0.13 hectare, 421 Rakba 0.13 hectare and 422 Rakba 0.13 hectare, total three Rakba 0.39 hectare. In this revenue suit, no reference of road or public path way was mentioned. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by Satpal Yadav

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:10958]

[CR-36/2024]

against defendants for a 10 feet wide public way, so as to continue to facilitate him as thorough fare.

¶29

A civil suit for right of way or public path way may be filed before Civil Court and jurisdiction of Civil Court is not a debateable issue. Both the suits are on different subject matter, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶30

As a result, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶33

GAURAV /41

Dhaniram S/O Bhagmal, v. Satpal Yadav S/O Lal Singh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaniram S/O Bhagmal, v. Satpal Yadav S/O Lal Singh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdev S/O Sumer Singh Vs Asha D/O Sumer Singh

Naresh Kumar Singhal Vs State of Raj and Others

Rajesh Dhobi S/O Late Sh. Mangal Ram Vs M/S Khadi Gram Udyog Mandal Amarsar

Om Prakash Gupta Vs Ballu Singh S/O Late Shri Mansingh Rawat and Late Smt. Shanti Devi

Smt. Vimla Devi Daughter of Shri Ramjilal Parashar, Wife of Shri Shivdutt Sharma Vs Shri Ramjilal Parashar Son of Shri Ramcharan

Smt Bhuri Devi Vs U I T Bharatpur and Ors.