JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26/11/2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Osian District, Jodhpur and judgment & decree dated 31/1/2020 passed by Addl. District Judge, Jodhpur (District), whereby, the suit and appeal filed by the appellants have been dismissed, respectively. 2. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit inter alia with the averments that the land comprised in Khasra No.146 was in joint khatedari and possession of the appellants and in this land there was a way leading to 'Kan Ji ki Gufa' on which the villagers had right of way by way of easement. It is claimed that at the request of villagers and Gram Panchayat, the appellants surrendered 09biswa land in the year 1988 by attaching the plan of land proposed to be surrendered. The surrendered land was mutated as 'way' in the revenue record and mutation entry no. 933 pertaining to 09 biswa with khasra no. 146/2 was made. It is then claimed in the plaint that in the revenue trace map prepared by the Patwari, instead of the originally surrendered land, different land was marked, which came to the notice of the plaintiffs in the year 2009. It was claimed that there exists a water tank and two water taps on the land marked in the trace map. The prayer made by the plaintiffs seeking correction in the revenue record did not yield any results and the plaintiffs were threatened with dispossession and demolition of the water tank. 3. Based on the above submissions, relief was claimed that the original way instead of khasra no. 146/2 be declared as land of 'way' and the revenue record be corrected and injunction was sought against the defendants from starting a new pathway. 4. The suit was resisted by the respondents no.1 and 2 by filing written statement. It was inter alia indicated that the land in khasra no. 146 is recorded in the name of defendants, khasra no. 146/1 & 146/2 are Gair Mumkin Government land and khasra no. 146/3 belongs to the appellants. The allegations pertaining to mistake having been committed by the Patwari was denied and it was emphasized that the 'way' has been declared and shown in the trace map over the correct place. 5. Objection pertaining to jurisdiction of the civil court was also raised. 146/3 belongs to the appellants. The allegations pertaining to mistake having been committed by the Patwari was denied and it was emphasized that the 'way' has been declared and shown in the trace map over the correct place. 5. Objection pertaining to jurisdiction of the civil court was also raised. It was indicated that as the appellants were seeking to obstruct the way in question, the direction was given to the Sub-Tehsildar to take necessary action and on 12/4/2010 in the presence of police the 'way' was opened. 6. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 also filed written statement denying the averments contained in the plaint. Submissions were made that the plaintiffs were seeking to create 'way' in khasra no. 146, which belongs to the defendants and could not have been surrendered by the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard deserves to be rejected. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 06 issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs four witnesses were examined and 07 documents were produced. On behalf of the defendants 04 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were produced. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the land comprised in khasra no. 146 did not belong to the plaintiffs and that not only land comprised in khasra no. 146/2 but land comprised in khasra no. 146/1 was land of 'Gair Mumkin Rasta'. The plaintiffs were khatedars of khasra no. 146/3. The trial court also noticed conflicting evidence of the plaintiffs and after noticing the fact that in the proceedings initiated under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act, 1956') the plaintiffs were found trespassers over the land in question and, therefore, apparently the proceedings were initiated before the civil court only with a view to get out of the proceedings against them under Section 91 of the Act, 1956 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the land comprised in khasra no. 146/2 was indeed the land of 'way' and the allegation pertaining to incorrect indication in the trace map was rejected. On the objection pertaining to maintainability of the suit before the civil court, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the defendants did not lead any evidence, the suit was maintainable, however, based on its findings on merits, dismissed the suit. 9. On the objection pertaining to maintainability of the suit before the civil court, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the defendants did not lead any evidence, the suit was maintainable, however, based on its findings on merits, dismissed the suit. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal. Along with the first appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed for placing on record the orders passed by the competent courts, whereby, the order passed under Section 91 of the Act, 1956 was reversed / remanded by the appellate court. 10. The first appellate court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit was filed on 12/4/2010 and was decided on 26/11/2019 and the documents sought to be produced pertain to the year 2002 and 2010, which were well within the knowledge of the appellants, the plea raised regarding appellants being unaware of the orders was negated and consequently, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was rejected. 11. The appellate court after noticing various contentions raised, came to the conclusion that the plea raised regarding surrendering the land comprised in 'way' which was in use for generations was apparently unpalatable, inasmuch as once the way was already in existence, there was no necessity to surrender the same and based on the said conclusion arrived at the finding that the land indicated in the trace map was surrendered. 12. The appellate court, on examining the issue pertaining to jurisdiction of the civil court also came to the conclusion that as the suit was filed for declaration and injunction in relation to revenue land, the jurisdiction lies with the revenue courts and in terms of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, 1955 (?the Act, 1955') the suit before the civil court was barred and consequently dismissed the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently made submissions that the two courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit and appeal filed by the appellants. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently made submissions that the two courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit and appeal filed by the appellants. 14. Submissions were made that rejection of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was not justified inasmuch as the trial court had based its judgment primarily on the fact that the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act, 1956 had been decided against the appellants and once the said order has been reversed and matter was remanded by the appellate court, the same were required to be taken on record and rejection of the application is, therefore, not justified only on the ground of delay. 15. Further submissions were made that the appellate court in the absence of any cross objection under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC having been filed by the respondents, was not justified in reversing the finding on issue no.5 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the civil court and on that count also, the judgments impugned require interference. It was emphasized that the plaintiffs had surrendered a different parcel of land on account of its long user as 'way', however, in the trace map wrong indication was made. The appellants specifically sought copy of the documents indicating the surrender, which had contained the map, however, the same was not supplied indicating that the same was not available and the document which the appellants produced indicating the surrendered land was not accepted and which, in the circumstances of the case, not justified, resulting in appellants losing their land where the construction already exist and, therefore, the appeal does give rise to substantial question of law and, therefore, the same be admitted. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing on caveat contested the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted that the two courts below have concurrently found on the issues of facts against the appellants and, therefore, the second appeal was not maintainable against such findings. 17. Further submission was made that the suit itself was barred under Section 207 of the Act, 1955 and was rightly held so by the first appellate court. It was also submitted that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised by the respondents without filing cross objection and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance. 18. 17. Further submission was made that the suit itself was barred under Section 207 of the Act, 1955 and was rightly held so by the first appellate court. It was also submitted that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised by the respondents without filing cross objection and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance. 18. Submissions were also made that in fact the proceedings initiated by the appellants under Section 136 of the Act, 1956 seeking correction in the land records had already been rejected and, therefore, the plea raised even on merits has no substance and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. So far as the rejection of the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC by the first appellate court is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellants in the year 2019 wanted to place on record the documents pertaining to the year 2002 and 2010 i.e. the orders passed by the competent revenue courts. The plea raised that the appellants were unaware of passing of the said orders appears to be wholly spacious inasmuch as once the appeals were filed by them which were accepted, to claim that they were unaware of passing of the said orders for over nine years and more cannot be accepted. 21. In view thereof, the rejection of the application by the first appellate court on account of unexplained delay and lack of due diligence cannot be faulted. 22. The suit was filed claiming the following reliefs: 23. A perusal of the reliefs would indicate that the appellants were seeking declaration and injunction qua agriculture land. Further, the relief pertained to correction in the revenue records. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants despite repeated queries made in this regard, failed to indicate as to how the suit in question with the reliefs as indicated hereinbefore could not be filed before the revenue courts, which apparently has the jurisdiction qua the suits filed for declaration, injunction and correction of revenue entries. 25. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants despite repeated queries made in this regard, failed to indicate as to how the suit in question with the reliefs as indicated hereinbefore could not be filed before the revenue courts, which apparently has the jurisdiction qua the suits filed for declaration, injunction and correction of revenue entries. 25. As noticed, as the learned counsel for the appellants failed to indicate any reason, however, after the arguments were concluded, learned counsel submitted certain orders passed during pendency of the suit, whereby, the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on two occasions were dismissed by the trial court. A perusal of the said material indicates that in the first order passed on 15/11/2011, the trial court did not deal with the issue at all and on the second occasion, the trial court by observing that as issue no. 5 has been framed in this regard, there was no necessity to decide the said aspect at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC application and the revision petition filed by the respondents was also rejected by this Court precisely on the existence of issue no.5. 26. The provisions of Section 207 of the Act, 1955 bars jurisdiction of civil courts to take cognizance of any suit based on cause of action in respect of which relief could be obtained by means of a suit filed before the revenue courts. The trial court, without adverting to the averments made in the suit and provisions of Section 207 of the Act, 1955 rejected the plea. However, the first appellate court noticing the provisions of Section 207 of the Act, 1955 and the reliefs claimed rightly came to the conclusion that the suit was barred. 27. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants regarding the defendants having not filed any cross objection qua the finding on issue no.5 before the appellate court and, therefore, the civil court lacking jurisdiction, is concerned, the said submission also has no substance inasmuch as the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC so far as relevant reads as under: "22. Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred as separate appeal.- (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal provided he has filed such objection in the Appellant Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow." 28. A perusal of the above provision would indicate that the same is in two parts, (i) where the respondent in appeal can support the decree on the ground that the finding against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour and (ii) it is required to take cross objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal by filing the same within one month from the date of service on him of notice of appeal. 29. As the trial court has dismissed the suit on merits and the respondents were merely seeking to challenge the decree based on the finding on issue no.5, the same could be done by them without filing any cross objection. It is only in case the respondents want further relief from what has been granted by the trial court that they are required to file cross objections, as has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banarsi & Ors. vs. Ram Phal: (2003) 9 SCC 606 . 30. In view thereof, the submissions made in this regard also have no substance. 31. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the map along with the application, whereby, the land in question was surrendered having been misplaced by the respondent State and, therefore, the version of the appellants ought to have been accepted by the two courts below. 31. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the map along with the application, whereby, the land in question was surrendered having been misplaced by the respondent State and, therefore, the version of the appellants ought to have been accepted by the two courts below. The said plea also has no substance inasmuch as once the Government record / trace map indicated a particular status, for attempts made on the part of the appellant to negate the same, the burden lay on them only and merely for absence of document, the said plea raised by them could not be accepted, for that reason alone. 32. So far as the merits of the suit is concerned, both the courts have concurrently found that the plea raised by the appellants regarding surrendering of land different from what was indicated in the trace map had no substance inasmuch as instead of land indicated in khasra no. 146/2, the appellants were seeking to indicate the land comprised in khasra no. 146, which belonged to the respondents. The appellate court made an important observation that in case the 'way' in question was existing for generations then essentially there was no reason for the appellants to surrender the land and, therefore, the plea raised regarding surrender of land of existing 'way' had no substance. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any perversity in the findings of the two courts below so as to give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. 34. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out by the appellants in the second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.