Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1045 (RAJ)

Gopal v. Manohar Lal

2016-07-22

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 6.5.16 of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 89/13, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, has been dismissed. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia against the petitioner herein and UIT, Bhilwara, in respect of a plot ad measuring 60x85 sq. ft. purchased by him from its khatedar Ladulal s/o Barda Balai, which was surrendered to UIT, Bhilwara for change of land use i.e. from agriculture to residential. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that after conversion/regularisation of the land, vide order dated 6.4.11, the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the UIT stands duly registered on 18.9.12, however, on the objection being raised by the petitioner-defendant, the proceedings have been suspended by the UIT, Bhilwara. Accordingly, the plaintiff has sought declaration that plot in question is owned by him and the petitioner and the respondent no.2 herein, the defendants, have no right whatsoever over the same. That apart, the plaintiff has also sought permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner herein, preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground that against the proceedings taken by the UIT, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue inasmuch as, on the basis of forged agreement, the land was regularised and lease deed was executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and therefore, the dispute raised being cognisable by Revenue Court, the suit as framed, is not maintainable before the Civil Court. That apart, the contention of the petitioner was that the land in question being khatedari land of a member of Scheduled Caste, the same could not have been purchased by the person, who is not the member of Scheduled Caste and therefore, the transaction in question is hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("Act of 1955'). 4. 4. The application stands rejected by the court below holding that the question sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after consideration of the evidence to be led by the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken before the court below as aforesaid, submitted that the court below has seriously erred in holding that as soon as lease deed is issued, the land becomes residential/commercial whereas, from the perusal of the plaint itself, it is apparent that vide order dated 1.11.12, the UIT has suspended the entire proceedings of regularisation in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel would submit that the court below has ignored the fact that the proceedings are pending before the Revenue Court. Learned counsel would submit that the question with regard to legality of the transaction being hit by provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955, is also required to be dealt with exclusively by the Revenue Court of the competent jurisdiction and not by the Civil Court. Learned counsel submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner as aforesaid in respect of the agriculture land, is not maintainable before the Civil Court and thus, the court below has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 7. It is settled law that while deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The plaint can only be rejected if the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction appears to be barred by law. 8. Indisputably, the land in question was sold by khatedar Ladulal in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner surrendered the land to the UIT for conversion from agriculture to residential purposes. The land acquired by the UIT was regularised vide order dated 6.4.11 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, a lease deed of the residential land was issued in his favour on 31.8.12, which stands duly registered on 18.9.12. The petitioner surrendered the land to the UIT for conversion from agriculture to residential purposes. The land acquired by the UIT was regularised vide order dated 6.4.11 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, a lease deed of the residential land was issued in his favour on 31.8.12, which stands duly registered on 18.9.12. It is true that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, the proceedings have been suspended by the UIT, Bhilwara, vide order dated 1.11.12 but then, merely because, the proceedings stand suspended by the UIT, Bhilwara, it does not lead to the conclusion that the lease deed issued in favour of the petitioner of residential land stands cancelled. Be that as it may, from the perusal of the plaint, in no manner, a conclusion can be drawn that the dispute as raised in the plaint cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. Obviously, the contentious issues sought to be raised by the petitioner shall be determined by the Civil Court after framing the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and consideration of the evidence to be led by the parties thereon. Suffice it to say that from the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be concluded that it does not disclose the cause of action or it is barred by law and thus, the question of rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, does not arise. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the court below does not suffer from illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.