Government Hospital, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) v. Sadhuram S/o Kaluram Saini, R/o Dhani Siyalawali, Tan

Judgment

1. Sadhuram S/o Kaluram Saini, R/o Dhani Siyalawali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Ram Gopal S/o Suwalal, R/o Mohalla Khatedi, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Chandrabhan Singh S/o Gangasahay, Dhani Navodi, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:18556] (2 of 6) [CR-120/2022]

4. Parmanand S/o Mangilal, (Died) 4/1. Suresh Chand Saini S/o Late Parmanand Saini, R/o Dhani Meghawali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4/2. Sitaram Saini S/o Late Parmanand Saini, R/o Dhani Meghawali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4/3. Pushpa Devi D/o Late Parmanand Saini And W/o Geegaram, R/o Village District Khargon, Madhya Pradesh 4/4. Bimla Devi D/o Late Parmanand Saini And W/o Babulal, R/o Dhani Bad Ki, Tan Antela, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4/5. Chanda Devi D/o Late Parmanand Saini And W/o Devisahay, R/o Sachivalya Vihar, Kalyanpura, Riico Kanta, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) 4/6. Meera Devi D/o Parmanand Saini And W/o Gopal, R/o Sachivalya Vihar, Kalyanpura, Riico Kanta, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) 4/7. Saroj Devi D/o Parmanand Saini And W/o Bajrang, R/o Village Kariri, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Banshidhar S/o Mangi Lal, R/o Dhani Meghawali, Tan Shahpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Hanuman S/o Noparam, (Died)

6/1. Smt. Teeja Devi W/o Late Hanuman, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Government Hospital, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6/2. Mst. Kamli Devi D/o Late Hanuman And W/o Girdhari Lal, R/o Village Sultanpura Bansa, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6/3. Lalita Devi D/o Late Hanuman And W/o Ram Swaroop Kasana, R/o Village Sultanpura Bansa, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6/4. Mst. Kesari Devi D/o Late Hanuman And Kalyan Sahay Famda, R/o Manpura Machedi, Industrial Area, Behind Doodh Filing Plant, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Kalyan Singh S/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Government Hospital, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

8. Banwari Lal S/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Government Hospital, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

9. Bhagirath Prasad S/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o Ward No. 9, Near [2025:RJ-JP:18556] (3 of 6) [CR-120/2022] Government Hospital, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) 10 Mohan Lal S/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Government Hospital, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

11. Mst. Chimma Devi W/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Government Hospital, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

12. Sitaram S/o Bheruram, R/o Dhani Ghuddaud, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

13. Phool Chand S/o Murlidhar, R/o Dhani Motihali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

14. Ram Singh S/o Murlidhar, R/o Dhani Motihali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

15. Mahesh S/o Murlidhar, R/o Dhani Motihali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

16. Dharampal S/o Murlidhar, R/o Dhani Motihali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

17. Mst. Bimla Devi D/o Murlidhar, R/o Dhani Motihali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

18. Mst. Gyarsi Devi W/o Murlidhar, R/o Dhani Motihali, Tan Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Adv for Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Civil Suit N.C.V No.53/2016, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:18556] (4 of 6) [CR-120/2022] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos.1 to 5-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent injunction and eviction against the defendants in which plaintiffs sought relief to declare them as khatedar tenants of the land of Khasra No.3771 (old No.3167) and also sought possession of the land which was in possession of the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that admittedly it was a suit for corrections of the mutation entries in relation to agricultural land as well as dispossession so it ought to have been tried by the Revenue Court. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that plaintiffs wanted to declare them as khatedar, so without getting them declared as khatedar, the present suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendants further submitted that plaintiffs had also filed a suit to declare them as khatedar tenants and sought possession of the disputed land before the Revenue Court. So, the present suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court but trial court vide order dated 26.04.2022 had wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. reported in (2019) 3 SCC 692; Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that defendants filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read [2025:RJ-JP:18556] (5 of 6) [CR-120/2022] with Section 151 CPC for causing delay in the trial and they had also filed an application under Section 10 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that disputed land was converted for residential use. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the suit was pending before the SDM, in which defendants had also filed the application that said suit is not maintainable because disputed land was urban land and said application filed by the defendants was dismissed by the SDM Court vide order dated

20.01.2016. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants clearly mentioned that they had not sought any relief for declaration of the khatedari rights. So, trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants 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 and perused the impugned order. Trial court while dismissing the application categorically observed that the land in question was converted from agriculture to residential and thereafter patta was also obtained from the State Government, therefore the relief sought for by the plaintiffs could not be granted by the civil Court. The trial court also noted that from the perusal of the plaint it did not transpire that the plaintiffs had sought relief for declaration of their khatedari rights. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants [2025:RJ-JP:18556] (6 of 6) [CR-120/2022] under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. AVINASH GULERIA /134 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J