Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nawal Kishore And Others vs Madho Prasad on 24 January, 2013
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
In the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench Jaipur S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.87/2012 Nawal Kishore & Ors. Versus Madhoprashad Date of Order :::: 24.01.2013 Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi Mr. Mohit Gupta, for petitioners. Order By the Court:-
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.1 Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Civil Suit No.260/11, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Mohit Gupta for the petitioners that the petitioners had moved the application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, in as much as the land in question is an agricultural land and the declaration sought by the plaintiff in the suit could not be granted by the civil court. The counsel has relied upon the provisions contained in Section 91 read with 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to substantiate his submissions.
3. The Court does not find any substance in the present petition in as much as the relief sought for by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit is for declaration of his right under the will dated 26.01.2007, which does not fall under any of the declarations mentioned in the Third schedule to the Tenancy Act. Merely because the land in question is agricultural land, that itself would not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court. In order to bring the case within Section 207 of Tenancy Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court, the defendants have to show that the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff fall under the Third schedule and triable exclusively by the Revenue court. The trial court having rightly appreciated the provisions contained in the Tenancy Act and C.P.C., the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, which would require interference of this Court. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
(Bela M. Trivedi), J.
R.Vaishnav
48. Certificate:All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Ramesh Vaishnav Jr.P.A.