[2025:RJ-JP:22932] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 57/2023 1. Puranmal S/o Bhorelal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. Kailash S/o Bhorelal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar Rajasthan. 3. Suresh S/o Bhorelal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar Rajasthan. 4. Prakash S/o Bhorelal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar Rajasthan. 5. Mukesh S/o Bhorelal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar Rajasthan. 6. Lali D/o Bhorelal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar Rajasthan. 7. Kamli W/o Bhorelal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Arjun S/o Sadhu, Aged About 60 Years, (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs. R/o Village Narayan, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 1/1. Sarpati Devi W/o Late Shri Arjun, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Bas Berisal, Narayanpur, District Alwar (Raj.) 1/2. Dataram S/o Late Shri Arjun, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Bas Berisal, Narayanpur, District Alwar (Raj.) 1/3. Nand Kishore S/o Late Shri Arjun, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bas Berisal, Narayanpur, District Alwar (Raj.) 1/4. Jeeturam S/o Late Shri Arjun, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bas Berisal, Narayanpur, District Alwar (Raj.) 1/5. Dinesh S/o Late Shri Arjun, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bas Berisal, Narayanpur, District Alwar (Raj.) 1/6. Saroj D/o Late Shri Arjun W/o Amar Chand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shahpura, District Jaipur 1/7 Jyoti D/o Arjun W/o Rakesh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Kotputali- Behror 1/8 Priyanka D/o Arjun W/o Mukesh, Aged About 38 Years, [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (2 of 11) [CR-57/2023] R/o Dhani Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Kotputali-Behror 2. Rohitash S/o Bhola, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Narayan, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 3. Suresh S/o Bhola, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Narayan, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 4. Yashpal S/o Bhola, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Narayan, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 5. Laxmi D/o Bhola, R/o Village Narayan, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 6. Rani Devi D/o Bhola, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Narayan, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 7. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Land Holder, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 8. Jeevan S/o Sadhu (Since Deceased), through LRs 8/1. Jagmohan S/o Jeevan, Aged About 56 Years, R/o House No. D-255 (80) Feet, D-Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 8/2. Laxman S/o Jeevan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o House No. D-255 (80) Feet, D-Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 8/3. Sonu S/o Jeevan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o House No. D- 255 (80) Feet, D-Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 8/4. Manoj S/o Jeevan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. D-255 (80) Feet, D-Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 8/5. Meena D/o Jeevan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. D-255 (80) Feet, D-Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 8/6. Manju D/o Jeevan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o House No. D-255 (80) Feet, D-Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 8/7. Vimla D/o Jeevan, R/o House No. D-255 (80) Feet, D- Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 8/8. Poonam D/o Jeevan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. D-255 (80) Feet, D-Block, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (3 of 11) [CR-57/2023] 9. Shanker S/o Sadhu, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siya Ram Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/05/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners defendants aggrieved from order dated 08.02.2023 in civil suit no. 34/23/2021 passed by learned Civil Judge, Thanagazi, District Alwar whereby an application preferred by petitioners defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Bharvagi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Muthyam Reddy & Ors. 2017 SCC Online-SC 1053 submitted that the respondent plaintiffs have filed a civil suit to challenge a compromise decree passed by the revenue court. He further submitted that this Court has considered the maintainability of Civil Second Appeal in case of Community Memberan Chejaran Vs. Mustfa & Ors. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 658/2017 and in order dated 16.02.2024 and dismissed the second appeal has not maintainable in light of judgment in case of Bharvagi Constructions (supra). He further referred the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and submitted that when a suit is not maintainable and barred by law whether declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Hon’ble Court then the plaint is [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (4 of 11) [CR-57/2023] liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He also submitted that any order of revenue court can be challenged before the forum as provided under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or Rajasthan Land Revenue Act but no proceeding can be filed before a civil court. He further referred the provision of Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and submitted that such suit is barred by law. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by counsel for respondent plaintiff and he submitted that the issue of jurisdiction can be considered after framing the issue and recording the evidence. He further submitted that a suit for declaration and injunction was filed before the trial court to challenge the judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud and same is only maintainable before the civil court. He also submitted that a decree passed beyond the purview of Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDO) can be challenged by filing a suit for declaration. At last, he submitted that the issue raised by petitioners is mixed question of fact and law and can be considered only after framing the issue and leading the evidence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioners. 5. The facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that respondent nos. 1 to 6 have filed a civil suit for declaration of judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 in revenue suit no. 1/174/2013 passed by SDO, Thanagazi under Section 53/188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act as null and void. During pendency of this [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (5 of 11) [CR-57/2023] civil suit an application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed by the petitioners defendants but same was dismissed on 08.02.2023 by learned Civil Judge, Thanagazi. 6. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- 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 provision 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. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (6 of 11) [CR-57/2023] aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code. 8. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation. 9. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (7 of 11) [CR-57/2023] 10. 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 has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, 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. 11. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound 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, however, a drastic one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. 12. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (8 of 11) [CR-57/2023] 13. 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. 14. While considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the court has to consider the plaint as a whole along with documents annexed or relied by the plaintiffs. The facts narrated in the plaint clearly indicate that the matter pertains to revenue land and the plaintiffs have claimed particular share in the revenue land. The plaintiffs have further mentioned that revenue suit for partition and injunction under Section 53/188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed on 10.10.2013 before the SDO, Thanagazi titled as “Jeevan Vs. Puran & Ors.” and a counter claim was also filed. It was further mentioned that in a Lok Adalat a suit for partition was dismissed but counter claim was allowed and same was decreed. The plaintiffs have claimed that before organizing the Lok Adalat, no notice was served upon plaintiffs or proforma defendants. They have further averred that the decree passed by SDO is illegal and void ab initio as the order is not passed with consent of the parties. 15. A perusal of facts mentioned in plaint clearly indicate that the plaintiffs have challenged the decree passed in Lok Adalat on 01.06.2018 by SDO, Thanagazi, District Alwar. 16. A copy of order dated 01.06.2018 in revenue suit no. 1/174/2013 is available on record wherein attendance of the [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (9 of 11) [CR-57/2023] counsel for the parties were mentioned by the SDO. A perusal of order dated 01.06.2018 clearly indicate that this order is passed on merits and not on the basis of consent or statement or compromise between the parties. 17. The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1987”) was enacted to ensure that everyone has an access to legal aid and justice regardless of their socio- economic status and further for establishment of nation wide network of legal services. It also provides for establishment of Lok Adalat to promote justice on an equal opportunity basis. Section 19 of the Act of 1987 provides for constitution of Lok Adalat and it provides that a Lok Adalat is constituted when two or more persons are involved in Bench to dispose of the case on the basis of compromise and amicable settlement between the parties. If a Bench is not constituted as defined under Section 19 of the Act, then it cannot be said that it is an Lok Adalat. 18. In case, there is a duly constitute Lok Adalat as defined under Section 19 of the Act of 1987 then a bar under Section 21(2) of Act of 1987 is applicable. In such eventuality a civil suit or appeal filed to challenge an award of Lok Adalat is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in view of judgment in case of Bhargavi Construction (supra). 19. When a Lok Adalat invokes a jurisdiction not vested and passed a wrong award, then, same can be set aside in a writ petition as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 660. Since, the order dated 01.06.2018 in revenue suit no. 1/174 is not [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (10 of 11) [CR-57/2023] passed by a bench of Lok Adalat as defined under Section 19 and 21 of the Act of 1987, therefore, the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the instant case. 20. In case of Bharvagi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the judgment in case of State of Punjav Vs. Jalore Singh and Ors. (2008) 2 SC 660 has held that in view of provision under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 1987, an award passed by a Bench of Lok Adalat is not amenable to jurisdiction of civil court but same can be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or of Constitution of India in the High Court in accordance with law. 21. Now, comes the question of Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and same is reproduced as under: “207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only— (1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suitor application.” 22. Herein this case as the court of first incidence, the SDO Thanagazi has passed a decree on 01.06.2018 in a counter claim filed in revenue suit no. 1/174/2013 and also dismissed the revenue suit of plaintiff Jeevan and Ors. The matter pertains to revenue land and the rights are determined with regard to a revenue record, therefore, the provision of Rajasthan Tenancy Act are applicable in the instant case [2025:RJ-JP:22932] (11 of 11) [CR-57/2023] 23. In case of applicability of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, bar to institute a civil suit under Section 207 is also attracted and the plaintiffs are not at liberty to challenge said order by filing a civil suit. 24. The remedy before the plaintiffs is to challenge the order dated 01.06.2018 either before the proper forum available under the law which includes RAA and Revenue Board. A civil suit to challenge judgment of SDO is a matter relating to revenue land or declaration of right is not maintainable and same is barred under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Thus, the civil suit is not maintainable and same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The trial court has committed serious error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 25. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 in civil suit no. 34/23/2021 is set aside. 26. As a result, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is allowed and suit (plaint) filed by respondents plaintiffs is hereby rejected. 27. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /79