Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Maman Singh S/O Late Sohan Singh vs Rohitash Singh S/O Late Jamman Singh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:17839]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 244/2022
Maman Singh S/o Late Sohan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana(Alwar), Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rohitash Singh S/o Late Jamman Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar),
Rajasthan).
2. Ved Prakash S/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 17
Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pinky Devi
W/o Late Rajendra Singh Rajput.r/o Village Kokila Rabad,
Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan).
3. Shyam Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 12
Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pinky Devi
W/o Late Rajendra Singh Rajput.r/o Village Kokila Rabad,
Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan).
4. Anjali D/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 14 Years,
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pinky Devi W/o
Late Rajendra Singh Rajput.r/o Village Kokila Rabad,
Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan).
5. Pinky Devi W/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar),
Rajasthan).
6. Rajbai Devi W/o Late Jamman Singh, Aged About 74
Years, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar),
Rajasthan).
7. Santosh D/o Late Jamman Singh, R/o Village Kokila
Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana(Alwar), Rajasthan.
8. Suman D/o Late Jamman Singh, R/o Village Kokila Rabad,
Tehsil Neemrana(Alwar), Rajasthan.
9. Sub Divisional Officer, Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan.
10. Tehsildar, Neemrana (Alwar) Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:03:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17839] (2 of 4) [CR-244/2022]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 29/04/2025
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC
against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate, Neemrana, Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in
Civil Suit No.34/79/2022, whereby the trial court dismissed the
application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with
Section 10 CPC.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent
Nos.1 to 6-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for
permanent injunction and compensation against the defendants in
which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read
with Section 10 CPC but trial court vide order dated 19.10.2022
dismissed the application filed by the defendant.
Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that
defendant filed an application under Section 251(A) of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Neemrana, Alwar in the case of Maman Singh Vs. Pinky Devi and
Others, in which service was effected on plaintiff No.1. After the
service of the summons, the plaintiff No.1 filed the present suit.
The subject matter of the present suit as well as revenue suit is
the same. So, the proceedings of the said suit was stayed.
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:03:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17839] (3 of 4) [CR-244/2022]
Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that present
suit is related to agricultural land, so only revenue court had
jurisdiction to adjudicate it. So, order dated 19.10.2022 passed by
the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be
dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed in the case of Karan Singh Chouhan and
Others Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur
and Others in Civil Revision Petition No.54 of 2015 decided
on 09.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that
present suit is not related to agricultural land. Allegations against
the defendant is that defendant had encroached on the way, so
trial court had jurisdiction to try it. So, trial court has rightly
dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7
Rule 11 read with Section 10 CPC.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff and perused the impugned order.
The present suit filed by the plaintiffs is regarding way near
Khasra No.219. As per contention of the plaintiffs, defendant
wanted to encroach on it. So, plaintiffs sought permanent as well
as mandatory injunction. So, in my considered opinion, suit filed
by the plaintiffs is regarding way, which is in the agricultural land.
So, trial court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, present petition
filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed.
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:03:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17839] (4 of 4) [CR-244/2022]
The revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The
order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the trial court is set aside and
trial court is directed to return the suit filed by the plaintiffs for its
presentation before the court having proper jurisdiction.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH GULERIA /98
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 10:03:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
