[2025:RJ-JP:19781] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 233/2024 Smt. Somoti Bai W/o Shri Harikishan Meena, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Naya Bass, Alwar Tehsil And District Alwar (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus 1. Tehsildar, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 12/05/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Alwar in Civil Regular Appeal No.48/10/20 (CIS No.23/2020), whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar in Civil Suit No.98/2018 (CIS No.395/2017), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been returned back for want of jurisdiction. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which it was stated that plaintiff purchased a residential plot from Rakesh Meena on 30.09.2013 [2025:RJ-JP:19781] (2 of 4) [CSA-233/2024] and paid entire sale consideration and took possession of the disputed plot. On 09.10.2017, defendant(s) and their employees came at the disputed plot and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and stating that disputed land is a Government land and plaintiff is an encroacher on it. So, plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants to dispossess her. Despite opportunity, defendants had not filed the written statement and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k okn i= ds pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr xzke Hkwxksj rglhy o ftyk vyoj esa fLFkr fookfnr vkjkth ds lEcU/k esa okfn;k izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dh fMØh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gksus ls orZeku U;k;ky; dks gLrxr okn dh lquokbZ dh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk izkIr ugha gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\ To prove his case, plaintiff got herself examined as PW1 and got examined PW2-Harikishan. Defendants had not adduced any evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 returned the plaint filed by the plaintiff to present the same before proper jurisdictional court. Plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in observing [2025:RJ-JP:19781] (3 of 4) [CSA-233/2024] that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff had purchased the disputed plot from Rakesh Meena on 30.09.2013 through registered sale deed. Plaintiff had possession over the disputed property. Defendants had not filed the written statement to rebut the averments made in the plaint and also had not adduced any evidence. So, finding of the trial court as well as appellate court is perverse and required to be set aside. Civil Court had jurisdiction because the defendants wanted to evict the plaintiff without due process of law. So, judgment and decree dated 13.03.2024 passed by the appellate court as well as judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 passed by the trial court be set aside and appeal filed by the plaintiff be admitted on the substantial question of law as framed by the plaintiff in the appeal and defendants be directed to maintain status quo regarding disputed property. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that disputed land is agricultural land. As per revenue record, nature of the land in question is ‘Nahri’. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the matter. So, trial court rightly returned the plaint filed by the plaintiff for its presentation before the proper jurisdictional court. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admission of the appeal. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:19781] (4 of 4) [CSA-233/2024] Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /04