[2025:RJ-JP:20475] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7413/2025 Ramswaroop S/o Chanda, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Badh Jahota, Tehsil Rampura Dabdi, Dist. Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bansidhar S/o Rudaram, Resident Of Village Badh Jahota, Tehsil Rampura Dabdi, Dist. Jaipur. 2. Bhivaram S/o Rudaram, Resident Of Village Badh Jahota, Tehsil Rampura Dabdi, Dist. Jaipur. 3. Madan Lal S/o Rudaram, Resident Of Village Badh Jahota, Patwar Halka Jahota, Tehsil Amer District Jaipur. 4. Nanchu S/o Rudaram, Resident Of Village Badh Jahota, Patwar Halka Jahota, Tehsil Amer District Jaipur. 5. The State Of Rajasthan, Tehsildar Tehsil Rampura Dabdi, Dist. Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat Mr. G.S.Rajawat Mr. Tayyub Ali Ms. Kirti Vardhan For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/05/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) has been rejected by holding that the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:20475] (2 of 3) [CW-7413/2025] 27.12.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short, ‘the SDO’) is an interim order and not a final order, hence a revision petition against such order is not maintainable. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents does not disclose any cause of action, hence an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was submitted for rejection of the plaint but the said application submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 27.12.2024. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted before the Board but the Board instead of deciding the revision petition, rejected the same on a technical count of non-maintainability. Counsel submits that the Board has treated the order passed by the SDO as an interim order instead the said order was final in nature, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. The only question which is involved in this writ petition is that whether any order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is an interim order or final order. 5. A bare perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC indicates that an application for rejection of plaint can be filed on certain grounds, as interpreted under the said provision. One such ground is the absence of cause of action or the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. If such an application is filed and subsequently the same is allowed, the effect of the order would be rejection of the plaint. In other words, once the plaint is rejected, the order becomes final. By any stretch [2025:RJ-JP:20475] (3 of 3) [CW-7413/2025] of the imagination, an order passed on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be treated as an interim order, rather the same is final in nature and the same is revisable. 6. Hence, under these circumstances, the Board has committed an error by treating the impugned order dated 27.12.2024 passed by the SDO as an interim order, rather the said order is final in nature. The present writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted to the Board to decide the revision petition on its merit. 7. Stay application and all pending application (s) if any also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/18