Sikar (Rajasthan) v. Resident Of Dhani Badabandh Ki, Tan Raypur Patan, Tehsil

Judgment

1. Smt. Dhankori Wife Of Jwalaram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Dhani Badabandh Ki, Tan Raypur Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar .

Jagdish Son Of Late Shri Jwalaram, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Dhani Badabandh Ki, Tan Raypur Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar .

3. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shri Jwalaram, Resident Of Dhani Badabandh Ki, Tan Raypur Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar .

4. Ramotar S/o Late Shri Jwalaram, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Dhani Badabandh Ki, Tan Raypur Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar .

5. Sarjeet S/o Late Shri Jwalaram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Dhani Badabandh Ki, Tan Raypur Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar .

6. Anita Daughter Of Late Shri Jwalaram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhani Badabandh Ki, Tan Raypur Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar . ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr, Lokendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 07/01/2025 Order [2025:RJ-JP:1105] (2 of 6) [CR-109/2021]

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners defendants aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 18.08.2021 in civil suit No.68/2021 passed by learned Civil Judge, Neemkathana, Dist. Sikar.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners while referring Section 27 of Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971 submitted that a civil suit filed by plaintiffs is barred by law. He also submitted that to challenge the documents dated 11.06.1998 and 27.06.1998 a civil suit was filed on 13.07.2021 and same is barred by law of limitation. He also submitted that at the most declaratory suit can be filed within a period of three years. He also submitted that the land in question is an agricultural land and suit before civil court is not maintainable. He specifically referred the statement in the plaint and submitted that by virtue of Benami Transfer (Transaction) Act, a civil suit is barred by law. At last, he submitted that any civil suit filed against provision of law is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents plaintiffs and submitted that they have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which is maintainable before a civil court. He referred the pleading in the plaint and submitted that the jurisdiction and limitation were well explained by them and learned trial court after considering the issues raised by the petitioner defendants has dismissed the application. At last, he submitted that all the objections can be disposed of after framing of issues.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:1105] (3 of 6) [CR-109/2021]

5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (plaintiffs) have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 13.07.2021 stating that the plaintiffs are real owner of the ancestral property mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint which was purchased by their grandfather Gopal. Further they have challenged agreement/document dated

11.06.1998 and 27.06.1998 executed by father of plaintiff No.2 to 6 and husband of plaintiff No.1. The suit was essentially filed to challenge the documents executed by Jwalaram under the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971. During pendency of Civil Suit, defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of suit without resorting to full trial.

6. 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 observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by limitation, 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.

7. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bond 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, [2025:RJ-JP:1105] (4 of 6) [CR-109/2021] however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

8. 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 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.

9. 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.

10. A perusal of plaint indicated that plaintiffs have challenged the execution of documents after coming into effect of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971. These documents were executed in the month of June 1998 and the suit was filed in the month of July,

2021. The Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971 was enacted to establish gramdan village in pursuant to a gramdan movement initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave and Section 27 of the Act of 1971 provides for rights of gramdan kissan (farmer). The Act itself provides for management, allotment and rights.

11. Section 41 of the Act provides that the Gram Sabha may register itself as Cooperative Society and Section 40 provides for registration on sale of lands allotted by Gram Sabha or Gramdan [2025:RJ-JP:1105] (5 of 6) [CR-109/2021] Kishan. Section 43 provides that Gram Sabha is empowered to function as Panchayat. Section 46 bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue court and same is reproduced as under: (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act. (2) No order made by any such officer or authority under this Act shall be called in question in any court.

12. A perusal of aforesaid Section 46 of the Act clearly indicated that the jurisdiction of civil and revenue court were excluded in respect of any matter required to be settled, decided or dealt under the Act. Considering the provisions of Section 46 of the Act, it is apparent from perusal of plaint that the suit was filed to challenge the transaction under the Act of 1971. Moreover this challenge was made after 22-23 years before the civil court, therefore the suit is not only barred by law but it is also badly barred by law of limitation.

13. Section 3 of Limitation Act and Order VII rule 6 CPC provides for exemption from law of limitation but herein no such statement was made by the plaintiffs. A perusal of para 12 indicated that on the basis of threatening on 06.07.2021 suit was filed but in this suit, two documents executed under the Rajasthan Gramdan Act in the month of June 1988 were challenged and framing of suit clearly indicated that primary relief is for declaration about these documents. [2025:RJ-JP:1105] (6 of 6) [CR-109/2021]

14. Considering the grounds raised under Order VII rule 11 CPC, it is quite clear that civil suit filed by plaintiffs is not only barred by law but it has been filed beyond period of limitation therefore it is duty of the trial court to reject civil suit at very threshold without resorting to full trial.

15. In view of aforesaid, the revision petition preferred by petitioners defendants is hereby allowed and order dated

18.08.2021 in civil suit No.68/2021 is hereby set aside. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is hereby allowed and civil suit preferred by respondents plaintiffs is hereby rejected.

16. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. PREETI VALECHA /336 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J