[2025:RJ-JP:16914] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 39/2025 Nirbhy Singh S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village-Pidwali, Tehsil Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur(Raj.). ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Bharatpur 2. Chief Superintendent Engineer, Public Work Department, Bharatpur. 3. Superintendent Engineer, Public Work Department, Bharatpur. 4. Assistant Engineer, Public Work Department, Bhartapur. 5. Baldev S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur. 6. Chhelbihari S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur. 7. Bachchusingh S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur. 8. Tulsiram S/o Bhupsingh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District-Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Aman Bohra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment : 23/04/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge no.1, Bayana, Bharatpur (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) in civil appeal No. 5/2022 whereby the appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and directed the trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the competent court. [2025:RJ-JP:16914] (2 of 3) [CSA-39/2025] Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and the trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 18.10.2022 before the appellate court and the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 18.11.2024 partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and while affirming the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the trial Court to the extent that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, directed the trial Court to return the plaint filed by the plaintiff to present the same before the competent court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff is khatedar kashtkar of the land mentioned in the plaint. Defendants wanted to widen the road, so they had included the agriculture land of the plaintiff for constructing the road. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the defendants had not given any compensation and had not acquired the disputed land. So, the plaintiff had filed the suit before the trial Court for restraining the defendants from constructing the road but the trial Court as well as appellate Court had committed an error in not entertaining the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction. So, the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court be set aside and the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:16914] (3 of 3) [CSA-39/2025] Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants had taken the agriculture land for widening the road. The said suit is exclusively triable by the revenue court, so, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction. Learned appellate court had set aside the order passed by the trial Court but also confirmed the finding arrived at by the trial Court that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the trial Court to return the plaint for its presentation before the jurisdictional court. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly observed that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So, in my considered opinion, learned appellate court had not committed any error in giving direction to the trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the appropriate court. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admission of the appeal So, the present civil second appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/111