Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2495 (RAJ)

Asharam v. Revenue Board Of Rajasthan

2022-09-21

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. Against the order dated 17.07.2019, the petitioner preferred revision as well as review before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer which were also rejected vide orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Balu Ram preferred a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner who is respondent in the suit preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that notices under Sections 80 and 80(2) CPC were not served upon the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the service of such notice was a condition precedent for the maintainability of the suit and since the same was not served, the suit proceedings should have been dismissed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC will figure in the category of subclause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh committed an error while rejecting the application so preferred by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the Board of Revenue committed an error while rejecting the revision petition and the review petition preferred by the petitioner maintaining the order dated 17.07.2019. 4. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dayanand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Raj. 257 ; judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Natwerlal M. Badiani reported in (2001) 2 GLR 1378 and the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Y. Savarimuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4495 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30945-30946 of 2015). He, therefore, prays that the writ petition and the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be allowed and the plaint preferred by the respondents may be rejected. 5. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4495 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30945-30946 of 2015). He, therefore, prays that the writ petition and the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be allowed and the plaint preferred by the respondents may be rejected. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh and the revisional and review orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer submits that the relief prayed for in the plaint is not only against the Government officials as there are other prayers in the suit which have been sought for against the private respondents. He further submits that the relief against the Government officials will be granted only after the trial court passes a decree of declaration and permanent injunction. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected as the relief prayed for in the suit requires adjudication of the issues after adducing the evidence. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh and the revisional and review orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer along with other relevant record of the case. 7. The admitted position in the present case is that the Government officials are one of the respondents in the suit preferred by the plaintiff, wherein one of the prayers sought for is for correction of the revenue entries. Besides this prayer, there are other prayers which have been sought for by the plaintiff against the private respondents, wherein the permanent injunction along with the declaration has been prayed for. Therefore, if the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, in particular, Clause (d) are read, then it cannot be said that the relief prayed for in the suit is only against the Government officials and therefore, notice under Sections 80 and 80(2) of CPC is sine qua non or mandatory. Therefore, if the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, in particular, Clause (d) are read, then it cannot be said that the relief prayed for in the suit is only against the Government officials and therefore, notice under Sections 80 and 80(2) of CPC is sine qua non or mandatory. Since the multiple reliefs have been sought for in the suit preferred by the plaintiff, therefore, the condition of serving notice upon the Government officials cannot be the only reason on the non filing of which, the suit can be dismissed at the preliminary stage. The relief prayed for in the suit is multiple and it is noted that the correction in the revenue records can only be made after the issue of declaration or permanent injunction is decided by the trial court and then only the direction for correction in revenue entries can be made. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires adjudication after framing of the issues and adducing the evidence on the point and then only, the correction in the revenue entries may or may not be directed to be made. 8. Thus, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, in particular Clause (d) for rejection of the plaint does not attracts the provision that the plaint preferred by the plaintiff is barred by any law. 9. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable and have no application in the facts of the present case. 10. In view of the discussions made above, no illegality has been committed by the courts below in passing the orders impugned. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.