Ram Dhan S/o Shri Tejaram Kekari, Distt. Ajmer v. State Of Rajasthan Through Collector, Ajmer

: Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohan Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyamvada Singh for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 14/05/2025 Order This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kekri (Ajmer) (for short ‘the first appellate court’) in civil regular appeal No. 16/1992 whereby the first appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kekri (Ajmer) in civil suit No. 115/90 (for short ‘the trial Court’) whereby the trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, restrained the defendants from obstructing the possession of the plaintiff and/or to evict the plaintiff without following the due process of law. [2025:RJ-JP:20258] (2 of 5) [CSA-223/2004] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants mentioning therein that he is in possession of the disputed land since long but Tehsildar, Kekri had given the notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act in which after the reply, said notice was cancelled/withdrawn and direction was given to record the name of plaintiff in the revenue record. On 25.06.1990, another notice was also issued to the plaintiff under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act and plaintiff had challenged the said notice before the civil court. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and submitted the plaintiff was dispossessed and possession was taken from him on 17.07.1990 and civil court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k okni= dss iSjk ua0 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe oknh ds dCts dk’r esa gS rFkk mlesa ckM+k o fjgk;’kh LFkku cuk gqvk gS rFkk tkuoj ckU/krs gSa o pkjk [kkn bR;kfn j[kk gS\ 2- vk;k oknxzLr Hkwfe oknh ds dCts esa cqtqxksZa ds le; ls gh fcuk fdlh ck/kk ;k :dkoV ds pyh vk jgh gS\ 3- vk;k oknxzLr Hkwfe ij fn- 4-2-42 dks 'kkeykr desVh us oknh dk dCtk cnLrwj dk;e j[kk o mlds i’pkr rlhynkj dsdM+h us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 8-1-62 esa oknh dks jktLo jsdkWMZ esa [kkrsnkj ntZ fd;s tkus ds vkns’k fn;s\ 4- vk;k oknh fiNys djhc 50 o"kksZa ls fcuk fdlh jksd Vksd ds dkfct gksus ds dkj.k ,MolZ its’ku ds fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj Hkh csn[ky ugha fd;k tk ldrk\ [2025:RJ-JP:20258] (3 of 5) [CSA-223/2004] 5- vk;k fn- 30-8-76 dks mi ftykf/kdkjh dsdM+h ds }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k fd oknxzLr vkjkth dh djhc nks ch?kk tehu ij Hkh csn[kyh dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh ldh\ 6- vk;k izfroknh ua0 2 us fn- 17-7-90 dks oknh dks csn[ky dj dCtk izkIr dj fy;k gS\ 7- vk;k 'kkeykr desVh dk uksfVl lu~ 1942 QthZ gS rFkk ml ij Jhyky cksgjk ds QthZ gLrk{kj gS\ 8- vk;k oknh dks okn izLrqr djus dk yksdl LVs.MkbZ ugha gS\ 9- vk;k rglhynkj dsdM+h }kjk okn la0 424@90 ds vuqlkj /kkjk 91 jkt0 ys0 jsosU;w ,DV ds vUrxZr dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh dks jksdus dk vf/kdkj gS ;k ugha\ 10- nknjlh\ To prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1- Ramdhan, and got examined PW-2-Govindlal and PW-3-Shrikishan and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Ajaykumar Shukla, DW-2- Chaturbhuj and DW- 3- Kishoredan and got exhibited certain documents. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.1991 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff’s possession and/or to dispossess the plaintiff without following the due process of law. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide order dated

17.04.2004 while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on account that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the first appellate Court had committed an error in allowing the appeal [2025:RJ-JP:20258] (4 of 5) [CSA-223/2004] filed by the defendants. With regard to objection of the jurisdiction, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants before the trial Court and the trial Court had dismissed the same. So, the finding with regard to jurisdiction attained finality. So, the first appellate court had no power to adjudicate the matter with regard to the jurisdiction in the appeal. So, the judgment passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and the judgment passed by the trial Court be restored and the appeal filed by the plaintiff be admitted the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that it is an admitted position that plaintiff had challenged the proceedings of the Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act and it is also an admitted position that the dispute land is a revenue land. Plaintiff had right to challenge the order of the Revenue authorities before the revenue court and not before the civil court. So, the first appellate court had rightly came to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. So, the present appeal is devoid of merit and no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the disputed land is a revenue land and plaintiff wanted to challenge the order of the revenue authorities before the civil court. Plaintiff had remedy to challenge the same before the revenue court. So, in my considered opinion, the first appellate Court had not committed any error in allowing [2025:RJ-JP:20258] (5 of 5) [CSA-223/2004] the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction. Thus, no substantial question of law is made out in the present appeal. The civil second appeal stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Ritu/54 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J