JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 20/2/2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 78 of 2003, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit before the Trial Court seeking declaration to the effect that the decree dated 30/09/1991 passed by the S.D.O., Fatehpur Shekhawati in Revenue Suit No. 127/1991, having been obtained by exercising the fraud was null and void, and seeking declaration that the plaintiff had 1/2 shares in the agriculture lands in question and for permanent injunction. It has been alleged in the plaint inter-alia that the petitioners-defendants had no right, title or interest in the agriculture lands in question, however, the Revenue Suit No.127 of 1991 was got decreed in their favour by committing the fraud and forgery, and they also got the mutation entries done in respect of the said lands. The present petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 16 resisted the suit by filing the written-statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The Trial Court had framed the issues from the pleadings of the parties, and when the matter was fixed for the cross-examination of the plaintiff by the petitioners-defendants, the petitioners filed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction, and only the Revenue Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order against which the present revision petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. N.K. Tiwari for the petitioners, pressing into service the provisions contained in the Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that the reliefs claimed in the suit could be dealt with only by the Revenue Court, and therefore, the Civil Suit in the Civil Court was barred under Section 256 of the said Act. He also submitted that if the respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved by the decree passed by the Revenue Court, he could have filed the appeal under the said Act, and not the Civil Suit in the Civil Court. Mr. Tiwari has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Rukma (smt.) & Ors. v. Deva Ram, 2011(1) DNJ (Raj.) 96 to submit that the suit filed to cancel the compromise and the decree passed by the SDO Court is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the respondent No.1 on the other hand placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Horil v. Keshav & Anr., 2012(1) WLC(SC) Civil 405 submitted that the decree passed by the Revenue Court being sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud, only Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, as also the copy of the plaint on record, it transpires that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration to the effect that the decree dated 30/09/1991 passed by the SDO i.e. the Revenue Court, Fatehpur Shekhawati having been obtained by the petitioners and other defendants by committing the fraud and forgery was null and void, and the mutation entries made on the basis of the said decree were also liable to be set aside. The respondent-plaintiff has also sought declaration to the effect that he has 1/2 share in the lands in question, and he has also sought permanent injunction against the petitioners and other defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the lands in question. Though, it is true that some of the reliefs claimed by the respondent-plaintiff are covered under the provisions contained in the said Act, and such matters could be dealt with by the competent authority under the said Act, however, the main relief sought in the suit is for setting aside the decree passed by the Revenue Court, allegedly obtained by the petitioners by committing the forgery and fraud, and therefore, the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. At this juncture, a very pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in case of Horil v. Keshav & Anr. (supra), are required to be reproduced, which read as under:- "11. We are of the view that Revenue courts are neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that has overtones of criminality and the courts really skilled and experienced to try such issues are the courts constituted under the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. It is also well settled that under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try all types of civil disputes unless its jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication, by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or authority. We find nothing in Order 23, Rule 3A to bar the institution of a suit before the civil court even in regard to decrees or orders passed in suits and/or proceedings under different statutes before a court, tribunal or authority of limited and restricted jurisdiction". 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, which squarely applies to the facts of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. It has been also observed by the Trial Court that the respondent-plaintiff is a very old person, and the application was given by the petitioners at the stage when the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid to the respondent-plaintiff in the Trial Court.Petition Dismissed. *******