HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No v. 1. Prem Chand Sharma S/o Late

Judgment

1. Prem Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Dwarkalal, Aged About 77 Years, Resident Of House No. 22/56, Ward No. 46, Near Pani ki Tanki, Mokhapada, Kaithunipole, Kota (Raj.). ----Plaintiff-Respondent

2. Smt. Bindumati W/o Shri Nagendra Kumar Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Neelmani Niwas, 223/2A/1, Jayantipur Near Lord Budha, Convent School, Preetampura, Allahabad, Prayagraj(U.p). ----Proforma-Defendant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Malav Mr. Avi Sharma and Mr. Manan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order Reportable 26/05/2025

1. The instant civil revision petition is preferred by the petitioners-defendants aggrieved from the order dated 03.11.2023 in Civil Suit No.470/2023 titled as Prem Chand Sharma Vs. Ashok Pal and Others passed by learned Civil Judge (South) Kota, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants while relying upon grounds of the civil revision petition submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (2 of 16) [CR-32/2024] respondent No.1-plainitiff-Prem Chand Sharma has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the averment that an

agreement to sell was executed in favour of plaintiff for 7 plots in Khasra No.50 in Village Lakhava Sub-Tehsil Mandana, District Kota, having total area of 13095 sq. feet. He further submitted that the plaintiff has become title holder after execution of registered deed of said area. He also submitted that the plaintiff has derived a title in the shoe of erstwhile Khatedar Pandit Shrikant and Pandit Shrikant Sharma has filed a civil suit against the present petitioners before the Court of District Judge, which was resulted into a compromise decree. He further submitted that the plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No.334/2023 and same was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC on 18.07.2023 for filing before the Court of competent jurisdiction. He also submitted that afterwards present civil suit is filed before the same Court. An application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 read with Order II Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC was filed by present petitioners and the trial Court without considering that on earlier occasion Civil Suit No.334/2023 was returned on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit about same agriculture land but still dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants. He further submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error by not considering the previous order passed by it in a suit filed by same plaintiff. At last, he placed reliance upon judgment in case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian (father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Others : (2019) 3 SCC 692. [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (3 of 16) [CR-32/2024]

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application as the present suit is maintainable only before a Civil Court. He also submitted that while filing the instant suit, the plaintiff has mentioned filing of previous Civil Suit No.334/2023 and return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on 18.07.2023. He also submitted that the land in question is barren and not used for any agricultural purpose. He also submitted that the issue of title is also involved and he has not concealed any material from the trial Court. He also referred the impugned order and submitted that neither Order II Rule 2 of CPC prohibits filing of subsequent suit nor the law prohibits filing of fresh suit on same cause of action. He also submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error and if there is any issue with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction of the Civil Court, then it is a mixed question of fact and law and can be decided after framing the issues and recording the evidence. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon written submissions and additional written submissions submitted by him.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has referred judgment in case of Abdulla Bin Ali and Others Vs. Galappa and Others : (1985) 2 SCC 54, Hira Lal and Another Vs. Gajjan and Others : (1990) 3 SCC 285, Khema and Others Vs. Shri Bhagwan and Others : AIR 1995 Raj. 94 and Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian (father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Others (supra) and submitted that in facts and circumstances the only option is to file a civil suit before a Civil Court and a civil suit is maintainable [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (4 of 16) [CR-32/2024] only before a Civil Court. He further submitted that any objection about the jurisdiction can be raised in written statement and after recording the evidence the issue can be decided on merits but a suit of plaintiff cannot be thrown out without adjudication.

5. He also referred judgments in case of Rathnavathi & Anr. Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas : 2015 DNJ (SC) 15, State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. M/S. National Construction Company, Bombay and Another : AIR 1996 SC 2367, Deva Ram and Another Vs. Ishwar Chand and Another : AIR 1996 SC 378, Shri Inacio Martins, Deceased through LRs Vs. Narayan Hari Naik and Others : AIR 1993 SC 1756 & State of Orissa Vs. Klockner and Company and Others : (1996) 8 SCC 377 and submitted that if there is a difference between composition and relief of suit on different cause of action then a subsequent suit is not barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. He further submitted that a subsequently instituted suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC while considering the provision of Order II Rule 2 of CPC. He submitted that principle of res-judicata under Section 11 of CPC is not attracted to dismiss a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Learned counsel has further referred judgment in case of British Airways Vs. Art Works Export Ltd. and Another : AIR 1986 Calcutta 120 (DB) and submitted that a suit cannot be rejected on the ground on which present application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel has further referred judgment in case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (5 of 16) [CR-32/2024] Sri Bala & Co.: 2025 INSC 42, Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta : AIR 2011 SC 9 and Gurbux Singh Vs. Bhooralal : AIR 1964 SC 1810 and submitted that when a suit is filed on basis of accrued cause of action then same cannot be dismissed only on ground that earlier suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. At last, he submitted that no law prohibits institution of second suit even pendency of first suit.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and also considered the written submissions of learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff and judgments as referred by learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff.

8. The facts giving rise to the instant civil revision petition is that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction about the suit property situated in Khasra No.50, Village Lakhava Sub-Tehsil Mandana, District Kota, and presently in Ward No.9 of Municipal Corporation, Kota (South). In para No.12 of the plaint, it was mentioned that the plaintiff has earlier filed a suit for injunction titled as Prem Chand Sharma Vs. Ashok Pal and Ors. : Civil Suit No.334/2023 but while invoking power under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, the Court has returned the plaint on 18.07.2023 to file before Court of competent jurisdiction. The plaintiff has mentioned that the land is a barren land and no agricultural activity is in progress on said land. The plaintiff has further referred the provision of Order VII Rule 13 of CPC and mentioned that second civil suit is not restricted.

9. During pendency of subsequently filed civil suit No.470/2023, an application under Order VII Rule 10, 11 read [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (6 of 16) [CR-32/2024] with Order II Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC was filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners herein) on 09.10.2023 but same was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.11.2023. Hence this civil revision petition:

10. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (7 of 16) [CR-32/2024] the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

11. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code.

12. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation.

13. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (8 of 16) [CR-32/2024] the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

15. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

16. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (9 of 16) [CR-32/2024] detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

17. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law.

18. The law over the point clearly shows that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be allowed to reject a civil suit if same is barred by any law and the trial Court is duty bound to consider the provision of law while deciding the application.

19. For ready reference Order VII Rule 13 of CPC is reproduced as under:- “13. Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint.—The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.”

20. The Rule 13 specifically provided that a rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds does not bar presentation of fresh plaint. Herein, we will consider the protection under Rule 13 of Order VII CPC in view of discussion made hereinafter. [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (10 of 16) [CR-32/2024]

21. Earlier, a Civil Suit No.334/2023 was filed by Prem Chand Sharma against the present petitioners before same Court of Civil Judge (South) Kota but on 18.07.2023 the civil suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for presentation before a competent Court.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the provision of Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the same is reproduced as under:- “2. Suit to include the whole claim.—(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.”

23. In case of Rathnavathi & Anr. Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas (supra) while considered Order II Rule 2 of CPC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that earlier a suit was filed for injunction and subsequently was for specific performance with different cause of action, therefore, a subsequently filed suit is not barred as the reliefs were different and both were founded on different cause of action. In case of State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. M/S. National Construction Company, Bombay and Another (Supra), again two different suits were filed, firstly, for enforcement of bank guarantee and secondly for claiming damages on account of breach of contract relating to said bank guarantee and it was held that cause of action in both cases were quite different and not identical. In case of Deva Ram and Another Vs. Ishwar Chand and Another (supra) after dismissal of first suit for recovery of sale price, a subsequent suit was filed [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (11 of 16) [CR-32/2024] for claiming possession to be owner of the land is found to be maintainable as cause of action in both the suits are quite different. It was held that the essential requirement for application of Order II Rule 2 CPC being identity of cause of action. In case of Shri Inacio Martins, Deceased through LRs Vs. Narayan Hari Naik and Others (supra) first suit was dismissed on technical ground that the plaintiff was no more in possession of the property and mere declaration suit is not maintainable and subsequent suit for declaration and title and recovery of possession will not barred by principle of res-judicata as under Section 11 of CPC. In case of State of Orissa Vs. Klockner and Company and Others (supra) it was held that to determine whether a cause of action to file a plaint is accrued or not then averments in plaint to be looked into. In case of British Airways Vs. Art Works Export Ltd. and Another (supra) it was held that plaint can be rejected when no cause of action can be disclosed and there was no cause of action for filing the suit.

24. In case of Abdulla Bin Ali and Others Vs. Galappa and Others (supra) while considering Section 9 of CPC, it was held that jurisdiction depends upon plaint and not on written statement. In case of Hira Lal and Another Vs. Gajjan and Others (supra) while considering Section 9 and Order XXXIX of CPC, it was held that where title to land arises incidentally, exclusive jurisdiction of revenue Court will not bar a suit for injunction in Civil Court. In case of Khema and Others Vs. Shri Bhagwan and Others (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that where there is a suit for specific relief and injunction as [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (12 of 16) [CR-32/2024] ancillary relief then the same is exclusively triable by Civil Court as the Civil Court is competent to grant the relief. In case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian (father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Others (supra) it was held that khatedari rights is required to be adjudicated by a Revenue Court but a relief to declare gift deed void and to restrain respondents is maintainable before the Civil Court.

25. Here in this case, the facts of the case clearly indicate that earlier a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff Prem Chand Sharma and same was returned by the trial Court on 18.07.2023 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Instead of approaching a Revenue Court, a suit for declaration cum injunction is filed before the same Court with a declaratory relief that sale deed dated

05.06.2023 executed by defendant No.2 with respect to Khasra No.50 ad measuring 0.6 hectares up to the extent of 7410 sq. feet for plot Nos.43 to 49. A perusal of plaint in Civil Suit No.334/2023 indicate that the plaintiff has mentioned description of 7 plots Nos.43 to 49 ad measuring 13095 sq. feet situated (part of) in Khasra No.50 rakba 19.62 hectares purchased by plaintiff on

20.08.2012. The plaintiff has specifically mentioned that the land of Khasra No.50 was in holding of Pandit Shrikant.

26. The trial Court after considering judgment in case of Lal Singh Vs. Panna Lal : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1644/2012 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has returned the plaint only on ground that it is immaterial whether the land is part of abadi area or otherwise but if the same is recorded as an agricultural (revenue) land then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (13 of 16) [CR-32/2024] to entertain a civil suit in view of bar under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

27. Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is reproduced as under:-

207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only— (1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suitor application. Explanation— If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted.

28. While interpreting Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, in case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian (father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that without declaration of khatedari right, a suit for cancellation is not maintainable before a Civil Court.

29. Here in this case, the land for which a declaratory relief is claimed is a part of same Khasra No.50 and according to judgment in case of Lal Singh Vs. Panna Lal (supra), the land use is [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (14 of 16) [CR-32/2024] immaterial. It means that if a dispute pertains to khatedari rights then if law prohibits institution of a civil suit, then same is barred by law.

30. Now after returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC on 18.07.2023 and after a clever drafting, a suit for declaration was filed to challenge the sale deed dated 05.06.2023 executed by defendant No.2-Smt. Anuradha Singh. It is also noticeable fact that for declaratory relief, the suit valuation was determined @ ₹300/-. A lower valuation and improper relief seriously doubts the bona fide of plaintiff.

31. The plaintiff was well aware about the litigation between the parties and if he has not included the entire claim in his plaint while filing Civil Suit No.334/2023 then he was at fault and no one can be blamed. We may presume that subsequent to filing of Civil Suit No.334/2023, a sale deed dated 05.06.2023 was executed but in para No.9 of plaint it was mentioned that first cause of action accrued on 27.07.2022 and thereafter on 17.07.2023. The plaintiff was well aware about accrual of first cause of action on

27.07.2022 in previously instituted suit but after return of plaint in Civil Suit No.334/2023, the plaintiff has added a declaratory relief and filed another plaint for seeking injunction, by taking aid of Order VII Rule 13 CPC.

32. Admittedly, the land is an agricultural land, may be a barren land and within limit of Municipal Corporation, Kota (South) but the plaintiff is not a recorded khatedar. There is no revenue record in favour of plaintiff and no suit in pending for declaration of khatedari right. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (15 of 16) [CR-32/2024] khatedari right of any person. Moreover, the land is not divided officially and no proceeding is pending for division and recognition of the rights of plaintiff.

33. If the plaintiff is aggrieved from loss of his right in an agricultural land then he has two option, firstly, declare his Khatedari right up to the extent of his share in the property and secondly, get conversion of land into abadi and then seek a relief of declaration but the plaintiff had filed instant suit for declaration and injunction, which is partially based on same cause of action available to him while filing Civil Suit No.334/2023. The plaintiff has never sought any permission for withdrawal to re-institute another suit as provided under Rule 1 of Order XXIII CPC. We can refer and rely upon judgment in case of K.S. Bhoopathy Vs. Kokila : (2000) 5 SCC 458 and followed in case of V. Rajendran & Anr. Vs. Annasamy Pandian (Dead) through L.Rs. : (2017) 5 SCC 63.

34. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the judgments as referred by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff are not applicable on the facts of the case. In case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan : (1986) 4 SCC 364, it was held that when a suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent the provision by means of clever drafting. Therefore, the trial Court has committed serious error while dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Thus, the instant revision petition is liable to be allowed.

35. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated [2025:RJ-JP:22918] (16 of 16) [CR-32/2024]

03.11.2023 is set aside. As a result, subsequent suit filed by respondent-plaintiff is also barred by law and the same is not maintainable. Thus, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is allowed and the civil suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff is hereby rejected.

36. Misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/125-sppl.