Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Smt.Saroj W/O Mahesh Jangid vs Nemi Chand Sahu Son Of Shri Bhagwanaram … on 15 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:26127]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 7/2021
1. Smt.saroj W/o Mahesh Jangid, R/o Village Post Tamkor,
Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan Mob No.
9772123614, Presently Residing At Plot No. S-329, 4-S
Scheme, Lohamandi Road Machda, Jaipur.
2. Dinesh Jangid Son Of Not Known, R/o Plot No. 169, Shiv
Nagar First, Sikar Road, Jaipur Mob. No. 7737585747
3. Sonu W/o Shri Ramesh Goswami Alias Mahesh Swami,
R/o Plot No. A10/4C, Jamnapuri Murlipura Scheme,
Jaipur.
4. Sandeep Swami Son Of Shri Govind Swami M/s Hardware
Zone Shop, Near Agrawal Hardware And Sanatary Store,
Road No. 2, Main Sikar Road, Jaipur Mob. No.
9509596144
----Petitioners/Defendant Nos. 1 to 4
Versus
1. Nemi Chand Sahu Son Of Shri Bhagwanaram Sahu, R/o
36/d Pocket A (Sfs) Mayur Vihar Phase 3, Naya Kondli,
Delhi State Presently Through Power Of Attorney Holder
Shri Neeraj Kumar Kaswa Son Of Shri Rameshwar Singh
R/o House No. 58, Jamnapuri, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur.
---Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Jaipur Development Authority, Deputy Commissioner,
Zone-6, Jaipur
—-Proforma Respondent/Defendant No.5
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma
For Respondent(s) : None
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment: :: 15/07/2025
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:16:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26127] (2 of 3) [CR-7/2021]
115 CPC against the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by Additional
Chief Judge No.17, Jaipur Metro-II Headquarter Chomu (for short
‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.51/2020 whereby the trial court
dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7
Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the
respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for
permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants and
respondent No.2- JDA mentioning therein that the defendants are
raising construction in violation of the permission given to them.
They had not left set back and wanted to raise commercial
construction which is not permissible.
The defendants filed an application before the trial Court
under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC to the effect
that to try the suit, JDA Tribunal had power and civil court had no
jurisdiction but the trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2020
dismissed the application filed by the defendants.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that
issue with regard to the violation of the permission regarding
construction is to be decided by the Tribunal and not by the civil
court. So, the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the trial Court be
set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of ‘Rohit Singh Vs. Vishambhar Dayal Shukla‘, reported in
2014(2) RLW 1367 (Raj.) and in the case of ‘Anand Kumar Sharma
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:16:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26127] (3 of 3) [CR-7/2021]
Vs. JDA Appellate Tribunal and Ors.’, reported in 2010(2) ILR
(Raj.) 241.
No one has put in appearance for the plaintiff.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order.
It is an admitted position that by way of present suit, plaintiff
sought relief before the trial Court regarding construction in
violation of the permission. So, in my considered opinion, JDA
Tribunal had power to adjudicate the said suit and not the civil
court. So, learned trial Court has committed an error in
dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7
Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the revision petition filed
by the defendants deserves to be allowed.
The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed.
The order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the trial court is set-aside
and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Ritu84
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:16:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)