Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 314 (RAJ)

District Collector, Rajsamand v. Magana

2021-02-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2021
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Rajsamand, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking declaration and injunction in relation to show-cause notice dated 16.06.2020 issued to him regarding illegal excavation and why penalty be not imposed. 3. The application was filed inter-alia on the ground that the suit has not been properly valued, court fees paid are deficient. The plaintiff has alternate remedy under provisions of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 ('the Rules') and, therefore the suit was barred and provisions of Section 80 CPC have not been complied with. 4. Though no reply to the application was filed, the same was contested by the plaintiff. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties, by its impugned judgment came to the conclusion that as the plaintiff had urgency, in terms of provisions of Section 80(2) CPC, the suit cannot be rejected. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred and as only a show-cause notice has been issued, the objection pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction also had no substance, which could only be decided after the evidence was led by the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was reiterated that the suit was barred under provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act'), as the plaintiff had alternate remedy under the provisions of the Rules and as such the trial court was not justified in negating the submissions made in this regard. 7. Further submissions were made that the valuation of the suit was not proper and as such looking to the proper valuation, the proceedings ought to have been filed before higher court and the trial court had no jurisdiction in this regard and, therefore, on that count also, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. The provisions of Section 41(h) of the Act, apparently would have no application, inasmuch as, the challenge laid is to the show-cause notice and admittedly against the show-cause notice, except for appearing before the authorities, no remedy has been provided under the Rules and as such the plea raised in this regard has no substance. 10. So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, admittedly based on the quantum of demand raised in the notice, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be challenged at this stage and as such the plea raised in this regard also has no substance. 11. Consequently, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. There is no substance in the revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.