Raghuraj S/O Pratap Singh vs Bhim Singh S/O Shri Harbhan Singh on 17 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Raghuraj S/O Pratap Singh vs Bhim Singh S/O Shri Harbhan Singh on 17 April, 2025

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 118/2021

1.     Raghuraj S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
       Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
2.     Amarpal S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
       Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
3.     Jagveer S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
       Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
                                                  ----Petitioners-Defendants
                                   Versus
1.     Bhim Singh S/o Shri Harbhan Singh, Aged About 50
       Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
2.     Dilip Singh S/o Shri Harbhan Singh, Aged About 45 Years,
       R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
3.     Kishan Singh S/o Shri Harbhan Singh, Aged About 65
       Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
                                                        Respondents-Plaintiffs

4. Premwati Widow Of Pratap Singh, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj.

5. Sharda D/o Pratap Singh W/o Ranveer, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. At
Present R/o Bhosinga Tehsil Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj.

6. Vimal D/o Pratap Singh W/o Nanak Chand, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. At
Present R/o Bhudagate Opp. Pharmacy College Deeg Dist.
Bharatpur

—-Proforma Respondents/Defendants

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Sogarwal, Adv. with
Mr. Aaditya Joshi, Adv. for
Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal, Adv.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Date of Judgment 17/04/2025

(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:16:35 PM)
(2 of 3) [CR-118/2021]

The present civil revision petition has been filed by the

petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section

115 CPC against the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge No.2, Bharatpur (for short ‘the trial

court’) in Civil Suit No.06/2017 titled as “Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs.

Raghuraj & Ors”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application

filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the

respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a

suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the

defendants in which the defendants filed an application under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the trial court vide

order dated 04.08.2021.

Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that by

way of the suit, the plaintiffs wanted to declare themselves owner

of the suit property (Khasra No.633 Min/0.02 situated at Village

Murwara, Tehsil Bharatpur which is mentioned in para No.1 of the

plaint) whereas, the suit property is revenue land and it is in the

name of the defendants on account of revenue record. The

present suit is barred under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that for

the same land, further proceedings are pending before the SDO as

well as Revenue Board, Ajmer. So, the petition filed by the

defendants be allowed, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed and

the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted

that the present land is not a revenue land. The plaintiffs are

(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:16:35 PM)
(3 of 3) [CR-118/2021]

residing there. The trial court while dismissing the application filed

by the defendants clearly mentioned that the present land is being

used as residential land or not, it would be decided after framing

issues and taking evidence of the parties. So, the present petition

being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the

plaintiffs.

It is an admitted position that by way of the present suit, the

plaintiffs wanted to declare themselves owner of the revenue land

which was mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint. Proceedings in

regard thereto are also pending before the SDO, Bharatpur and

Revenue Board, Ajmer. It is also admitted position that the

disputed land was in the Khatedari of the defendants. So, in my

considered opinion, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit

because disputed land is an agricultural land. So, the petition filed

by the defendants deserves to be allowed.

The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed.

The order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the trial court is set-aside.

The suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/118

(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:16:35 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)