1 | P a g e HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 239/2023 Reserved on: 11.02.2025 Pronounced on: 11.09.2025 Pulla Ram, Age 67 years, S/o Titru Ram, R/o Sailanwali, Bhagwan Chak, Pallanwalla, Jammu. …. Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. P.L. Sharma, Advocate Vs. 1. Rano Devi, W/o Lt. Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o Sailanwali, Kot Maira, Pallanwala, Jammu. 2. Deepak Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o Sailanwali, Kot Maira, Pallanwala, Jammu. 3. Mukesh Sharma, S/o Lt. Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o Sailanwali, Kot Maira, Pallanwala, Jammu. 4. Sarishta, W/o Lt. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, R/o Sailanwali, Kot Maira, Pallanwala, Jammu. ....Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sahil Mushtaq, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 15.11.2023, passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Jammu, in a suit titled <Rano Devi and others v. Pulla Ram and others”, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2 | P a g e 2. The facts of the case, as discernible from the record, are that the plaintiffs/respondents herein claim to be owners in possession of land measuring 2 kanals and 13 marlas, falling under Khasra No. 314 and mutation No. 714, situated at Village Bhagwan Chak, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu, in which a residential house has been constructed and they are in peaceful possession of the same. 3. The contention in the suit was that the defendants/petitioner herein are causing interference in their land and property, as such, they filed a civil suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of land measuring 2 kanals and 13 marlas, falling under Khasra No. 314 and mutation No. 714, situated at Village Bhagwan Chak, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu. The defendants/petitioner herein appeared before the trial court and filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the plea that the suit land is agricultural land and that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. This application has been rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 15.11.2023. 4. The petitioner has assailed this order on the ground that it has been passed against the facts and law, ignoring the mandate of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that the learned trial court brushed aside the argument that the suit was hit by the Agrarian Reforms Act and that, in terms of Section 19 of the said Act, it could only be adjudicated by the authority provided under Section 19 of the Act, in view of the settled position of law. 3 | P a g e 5. The respondents, in their objections, submit that they have only sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against interference in their possession and that it is only the civil court which is competent to consider the same. It is submitted that the respondent is not seeking possession of the suit land and the suit is not between landlord and tenant, as such, same is not affected by the Agrarian Reforms Act. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is necessary to have a glance over the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: 11. 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 provisions 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 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. 7. The court is required to only see the plaint and documents while adjudicating upon the application under Order 11 of the Code of 4 | P a g e Civil Procedure, and not any other pleading filed while opposing the plaint. 8. The perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs are the owners of land measuring 2 kanals and 13 marlas, over which one Chaman Lal had constructed a house in 9 marlas and they are in peaceful possession of the same. The defendants who are residing adjacent to the suit land are trying to grab their land and are interfering in their peaceful possession. 9. The suit was filed in the year 2021 and the initial issue for consideration before the trial court was regarding adjudication of matters pertaining to agricultural land. Section 19 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act provides for the powers of the revenue officers. The subject matter of the suit is possession, as the plaintiffs claim that their possession is being interfered with, and they are being dispossessed from the land, and if any person interferes with such possession, the relief would lie before the civil court. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the trial court does not have the jurisdiction in view of the fact that matter pertains to agricultural land. Section 19 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, reads as under: <19. Powers of Revenue Officers. 4 (1) Unless the class of Revenue Officers, by whom any function is to be discharged or any power is to be exercised, is specified by or under this Act, the Government may, by notification, determine the functions to be discharged or the powers to be exercised under this Act by any class of Revenue Officers. (2) The manner and procedure for the performance of duties, the exercise and conferment of powers, distribution of business and withdrawl and transfer of cases under this 5 | P a g e Act shall, save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be regulated by the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, samvat 1996 and the rules made thereunder. (3) The following applications, suits and proceedings shall be disposed of by a Collector: — a) Proceedings under section 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, Samvat 1980; b) Proceedings under sub-section (2) of section 68-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, Samvat 1980; c) Proceedings under section 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Samvat 2007; d) Application by an owner or an intermediary that the person, who claims to be cultivating the land as a tenant, is not a tenant but a trespasser; e) All other cases of dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse possession against the recorded owner/intermediary (4) Any application, suit or proceeding of the kind mentioned in sub-section (3), pending at the commencement of this Act before a Revenue Officer subordinate to a Collector or any Civil or Revenue Court, shall be transferred to the Collector having jurisdiction in the place in which the land in dispute is situate. (5) Any application, suit or proceeding relating to cases specified in clause (e) of sub-section (3) which immediately before the commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1988 were pending before any civil court, shall, on such commencement stand transferred to the Collector having jurisdiction over the area in which the land in dispute is situate, and the Collector shall in his capacity as the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of this Act.= 11. Since both parties are claiming to be in possession of the suit land, it is a dispute of possession which could only be adjudicated by the civil court. In this regard, the law has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in <Jagtu v. Badri and others”, 1979 SLJ (1) 6. Relevant para thereof is reproduced as under: - <…24. As already stated all disputes relating to the possession of the land whether principally, or collaterally, or incidentally involved are required to be decided under the Act. Two cases of the same nature can, however, be distinguished. Take the case where A sues for permanent injunction in respect of 6 | P a g e the land against B with the allegation that B without any right or reason is interfering with his possession. B raises the plea that he was the tenant of the land and was being wrongfully dispossessed by A and that he wants to re-occupy the land, or he disputes the right of ownership of the plaintiff in the land. Then in that case, the suit is cognizable by the Revenue Officer. But take the case where A in peaceful and personal cultivation of the suit land as an owner thereof is threatened by a wayfarer who has got no right in the land to dispossess him. Here the dispute does not call for any decision under the Act. The suit is cognizable by the civil court….= 12. Admittedly, the suit pertains to a situation where an owner in possession of the suit property is threatened with interference by a person who has no right to the suit land. In such a suit, it is not the right of possession that is under determination, but the factum of possession, which can only be determined by granting a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial court has rightly decided the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the same. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE Jammu: 11.09..2025 Vishal Khajuria Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No