Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Nirbhy Singh S/O Bhupsingh vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:16914]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 39/2025
Nirbhy Singh S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of
Village-Pidwali, Tehsil Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur(Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Bharatpur
2. Chief Superintendent Engineer, Public Work Department,
Bharatpur.
3. Superintendent Engineer, Public Work Department,
Bharatpur.
4. Assistant Engineer, Public Work Department, Bhartapur.
5. Baldev S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur.
6. Chhelbihari S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur.
7. Bachchusingh S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur.
8. Tulsiram S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with
Mr. Aman Bohra
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment : 23/04/2025
This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant-
plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree
dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge no.1,
Bayana, Bharatpur (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) in civil appeal
No. 5/2022 whereby the appellate court partly allowed the appeal
filed by the plaintiff and directed the trial Court to return the plaint
to the plaintiff for its presentation before the competent court.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 10:10:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16914] (2 of 3) [CSA-39/2025]
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff
filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-
defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which the defendants
filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151
CPC and the trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 rejected the
plaint filed by the plaintiff.
Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff preferred
an appeal against the order dated 18.10.2022 before the appellate
court and the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 18.11.2024
partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and while affirming
the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the trial Court to the extent
that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, directed the
trial Court to return the plaint filed by the plaintiff to present the
same before the competent court.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the
plaintiff is khatedar kashtkar of the land mentioned in the plaint.
Defendants wanted to widen the road, so they had included the
agriculture land of the plaintiff for constructing the road.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the
defendants had not given any compensation and had not acquired
the disputed land. So, the plaintiff had filed the suit before the
trial Court for restraining the defendants from constructing the
road but the trial Court as well as appellate Court had committed
an error in not entertaining the suit as well as appeal filed by the
plaintiff for want of jurisdiction. So, the orders passed by the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court be set aside and the appeal
be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the
memo of appeal.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 10:10:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16914] (3 of 3) [CSA-39/2025]
Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the
arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted
that contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants had taken
the agriculture land for widening the road. The said suit is
exclusively triable by the revenue court, so, the trial Court had
rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for want of
jurisdiction. Learned appellate court had set aside the order
passed by the trial Court but also confirmed the finding arrived at
by the trial Court that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the
suit and directed the trial Court to return the plaint for its
presentation before the jurisdictional court. So, the appeal filed by
the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed at the
admission stage.
I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for
the parties and perused the impugned orders.
Learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly
observed that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
suit. So, in my considered opinion, learned appellate court had not
committed any error in giving direction to the trial Court to return
the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the
appropriate court. So, no substantial question of law is made out
for admission of the appeal So, the present civil second appeal
filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Ritu/111
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 10:10:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)