JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.4.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, whereby, the application filed by the respondents under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. though has been rejected, the Trial Court has directed return of plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. 2. The appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration of the same as null and void, for possession and declaration as Khatedar qua the land comprised in old Khata No. 226 (New Khata No. 773) Khasra No. 4063 ad measuring 25.19 Bigha. The appellant prayed for the following reliefs:- ^^vr% izkFkZuk gS fd oknh dk okn Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ vej vkns'kkRed ,oa ?kks"k.kkRed fu"ks/kkKk fMdzh ikfjr QjekbZ tkos fd%& 1- fd izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk izfroknh la[;k 2 ds gd esa fu"ikfnr fodz; foys[k fnukafdr 21-01-2013 fujLr djus dh ?kks"k.k dh tkrh gS o oknh dks [kkrsnkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj izfroknh la[;k 3 izfroknh la[;k 2 oknh dks dCtk fnykosA 2- fd izfroknh la[;k 3 ds jktLo vfHkys[k] jktLo fjdkWMZ tekcanh esa izfroknh la[;k 2 dk uke gVk;k tkdj oknh dk uke bUnzkt djsa izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk oknh ds gd esa fu"ikfnr fodz; foys[k iathd`r fnukafdr 30-10-2006 dh izfroknh la[;k 1 o izfroknh la[;k 3 mldh ikyuk djsaA 3- fd okn [kpkZ odhy esgurkuk oknh dks izfroknh la[;k 1 ls fnyk;k tkosA 4- fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s oknh dks fnyk;k tkosA** 3. The defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. inter alia indicating that qua the said land, already a suit was filed by the plaintiff which is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotri, being case No. 33/2013, and wherein an application for temporary injunction was also filed, and in the said suit declaration of Khatedari rights has been sought and till such time such a declaration is given by the Revenue Court, the present suit was not maintainable and, therefore, the same deserves to be rejected. 4. The appellant filed a reply to the said application and submitted that the subject matter of the suit before the Sub Divisional Officer was different and the present suit for cancellation of sale deed is maintainable before the Civil Court. 5. 4. The appellant filed a reply to the said application and submitted that the subject matter of the suit before the Sub Divisional Officer was different and the present suit for cancellation of sale deed is maintainable before the Civil Court. 5. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the main relief prayed by the plaintiff was declaration of Khatedari rights and correction of entries in the revenue record and the suit seeking similar relief was pending before the Revenue Court, therefore, the present suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and consequently, passed the order as noticed here in before. 6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court committed an error in ordering for return of the plaint inasmuch as the relief claimed in the plaint pertains to cancellation of sale deed, which relief could only be granted by the Civil Court. It was submitted that the pendency of the suit before the Revenue Court cannot be a reason for dismissal of the present suit and on that count alone the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 8. The appellant was directed to produce the copies of the plaint in both the suits. In the present suit, as quoted hereinbefore, the appellant has claimed Khatedari rights and also sought correction of revenue entries. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 8. The appellant was directed to produce the copies of the plaint in both the suits. In the present suit, as quoted hereinbefore, the appellant has claimed Khatedari rights and also sought correction of revenue entries. In the suit filed before the Revenue Court, the following reliefs were sought:- vr% izkFkZuk gS fd oknh dk okn Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj oknh ds i{k esa fo:) izfroknhx.k la[;k&1 ls 2 ,oa 19 ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kkRed fMdzh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd %& d & fd okni= dh pj.k la[;k&1 esa of.kZr d`f"k vkjth ftlds [kkrk uEcj 773 iqjkus 726 [kljk uEcj 4063 {ks=Qy 25 ch?kk 19 fcLok dk 3@16 osa fgLls dk oknh dks [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkdj rn~uqlkj jktLo fjdkWMZ esa nq:Lrh QjekbZ tkosA [k & fd oknh ds i{k esa izfroknh la[;k&1 o 2 o 19 ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh fMdzh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd oknh ds okni= ds pj.k la[;k&1 esa of.kZr vkjkth ftl ij oknh dkfct gS mlds gd&fgLls esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ :dkoV ;k ck/kk mRiUu ugha djsa] 'kkafriwoZd mls dCtk dk'r djus nsosaA jktLo vfHkys[k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ n[kyUnkth u Lo;a djsa o u fdlh vU; ls djkosa u oknh dks csn[ky djsa u fdlh vU; ls djkosa] bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh fMdzh oknh ds i{k esa tkjh djkosaA x & fd gtkZ&[kpkZ] odhy esgurkuk oknh dks izfroknh la[;k&1 o 2 dks oknh ls fnyk;k tkosA ?k & fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA 9. A bare look at the reliefs sought before the Revenue Court would also indicate that the appellant has sought declaration of rights as Khatedar and correction in the revenue record. 10. This Court in Rukmani v. Bhola and ors., 2012 (2) WLC 797 has held that once the declaration as sought is granted by the Revenue Court regarding the khatedari rights of the plaintiff, there is no requirement to seek cancellation of sale deed as the sale deed would be rendered void and, therefore, such a suit is triable before the Revenue Court only. As noticed hereinbefore the relief claimed in the suit before the Civil Court and the Revenue Court is almost identical i.e. declaration of Khatedari rights and correction of revenue entries and, therefore, once the relief of declaration regarding Khatedari rights and correction in revenue record is granted, the sale deed would be rendered void and, therefore, the plaint was rightly ordered to be returned by the Trial Court under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. 11. The order impugned does not call for any interference, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.