[2025:RJ-JP:44853] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 49/2024 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 03/2020 1. Heera Lal Son Of Ram Prasad, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swai Madhopur (Since Expired On 02.05.2021 During The Pendency Of The Revision Petition) Thus Represented Through His Following Legal Representatives. 1/1. Girraj Son Of Late Shri Heera Lal, R/o Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 1/2. Gajraj Son Of Late Shri Heera Lal, R/o Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 1/3. Mahender Son Of Late Shri Heera Lal, R/o Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 1/4. Pappi D/o Late Shri Heera Lal And Wife Of Shri Lallu Ram, Resident Of Thai Ke Pass, Jatav Basti, Hindauncity, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 2. Shanti Lal Son Of Late Mangi Lal @ Bhori Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 3. Shakuntla D/o Late Mangi Lal @ Bhori Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 4. Ramoti Wife Of Late Mangi Lal @ Bhori Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (Since Expired During The Pendency Of The Revision Petition) (Deceased) 5. Ramesh Son Of Kishan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 6. Vijay S/o Kishna Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 7. Ratanlal S/o Kalua, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Mirjapur, [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (2 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] Tehsil Gangapur City 8. Krishan Kumar S/o Moolchand, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity (Since Expired During The Pendency Of The Revision Petition On 14.5.2021) Now Represented Through His Following Legal Representatives. 8/1. Laxmi Naraian S/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar, R/o Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity (Rajasthan) 8/2. Abhishek S/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar, R/o Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity (Rajasthan) 8/3. Bipil S/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar, R/o Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity (Rajasthan) 8/4. Kajal D/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar, R/o Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity (Rajasthan) 9. Gyan Singh S/o Nathya, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 10. Kishan Chand Son Of Ratan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 11. Sher Singh Son Of Ratan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 12. Suresh S/o Kishore, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 13. Kalawati W/o Kishore, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 14. Bhanwar Lal Son Of Babu Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 15. Gulab Son Of Babu Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 16. Kishan Bai Wife Of Babu Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity (Since Expired On 11.1.2020 During The Pendency Of The Revision Petition) (Deceased) 17. Lalit Son Of Meghraj, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 18. Brij Mohan Son Of Kishan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 19. Narayan Lal Son Of Kishan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (3 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] ----Defendants-Petitioners Versus Aam Janta, Through 1. Shivnarayan Son Of Chain Sukh, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 2. Shivnarayan Son Of Gilariya, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 3. Shyam Lal Son Of Fairariya, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 4. Hari Singh Son Of Chiranji Lal, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 5. Mathura Lal Son Of Kishan Lal, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 6. Vijay Kumar Son Of Mangal Ram, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 7. Pooran Chand Son Of Sibbu Ram, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 8. Gulab Chand Son Of Susariya, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 9. Prem Chand Son Of Pooran Chand, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 10. Bhag Chand Son Of Ramunath, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 11. Jagdish Prasad Son Of Lalluram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 12. Girraj Son Of Parbhati, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (4 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 13. Gopal Son Of Ramji Lal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 14. Bhimsen Son Of Ramprasad, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 15. Om Prakash Son Of Chiranji Lal, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 16. Bhajan Lal Son Of Late Mangi Lal @ Bhori Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 17. Prahlad Son Of Late Mangi Lal @ Bhori Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 18. Madan Moham Son Of Late Mangi Lal @ Bhori Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 19. Kamla D/o Late Mangi Lal @ Bhori Lal, Resident Of Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.) 20. Sher Singh Son Of Kishan Lal, Resident Of Ajmer 21. Deep Chand Son Of Ratan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 22. Prem Chand Son Of Babu Lal, Resident Of Jodhpur 23. Yogendra Son Of Babu Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 24. Preetam Son Of Meghraj, Resident Of Railway Colony, Hindaun City (Since Expired During The Pendency Of The Revision Petition Of 5.1.2020) Thus Represented By The Following Legal Representatives. 24/1. Dhiraj Kumar S/o Late Shri Preetam, R/o Trd Colony, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 24/2. Raj S/o Late Shri Preetam, R/o Trd Colony, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 24/3. Sapna D/o Late Shri Preetam, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 24/4. Priya D/o Late Shri Preetam, Resident Of Ward No. 4, [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (5 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 25. Kishan Chand Son Of Kishan Lal, Resident Of Poonam Colony, Gali No. 6, Near Nahar, Kota 26. Hari Son Of Kishan Lal, At Present M.p. 27. Dwarka Prasad Son Of Kishan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Mirjapur, Tehsil Gangapurcity 28. Land Holder Tehsildar, Tehsil Gangapurcity ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with Mr. Vinod Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 03/07/2025 1. Instant Review Petition is filed by applicants-review petitioners (plaintiffs) to review order dated 31.05.2024 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 03/2020 passed by this Court whereby this Court has allowed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejected civil suit No. 208/2016 filed by respondent(s)- plaintiff(s) before the Trial Court. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs- Aam Janta through Shivnarayan S/o Chain Sukh, Shivnarayan S/o Gilariya, Shyam Lal, Hari Singh, Mathura Lal, Vijay Kumar, Pooran Chand, Gulab Chand, Prem Chand, Bhag Chand, Jagdish Prasad, Girraj and Gopal who claimed to be representative of Jatav and Regar Samaj, Mirjapur Tehsil Gangapur City have filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction against 31 private defendant(s) and landholder Tehsildar Tehsil Gangapur City. During pendency of [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (6 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] said civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is filed by defendants on the ground that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs can only be granted by the Revenue Court and a suit in relation to agricultural land is maintainable before the Revenue Court not before the Civil Court. The Trial Court (Learned Additional Civil Judge) No.2, Gangapur City after considering the application has dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. Aggrieved 19 defendants, Hira Lal and others, have filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court, and the same was allowed by this Court after considering several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court including Pyare Lal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) through Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 692. Aggrieved 13 plaintiffs, who are review petitioners, have filed instant review petition. 4. Aam Janta through Shivnarayan S/o Chain Sukh, Shivnarayan S/o Gilariya, Shyam Lal, Hari Sinh, Mathura Lal, Vijay Kumar, Pooran Chand, Gulab Chand, Prem Chand, Bhag Chand, Jagdish Prasad, Girraj and Gopal have filed present review petition to recall and review order dated 31.05.2024 passed by this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for Review Petitioners submitted that defendant-petitioners Heeralal, Ramoti, Krishan kumar, and Kishan Bai have expired during pendency of the revision petition, but this fact was not brought on record by the defendants before the decision of the revision petition. He further submitted that defendant Heeralal expired on 02.05.2021, Ramoti during pendency of the revision petition, Krishan kumar on 14.05.2021, [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (7 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] and Kishan Bai on 11.01.2020. He also submitted that Respondent No. 24 in the revision petition, Preetam, also expired on 05.01.2020, but this fact was also not brought on record by the counsel while arguing the revision petition. He also submitted that an application for intimation of death has already been filed before the trial court on 23.03.2022, and amended cause title is filed on 17.07.2023 after taking on record the legal heirs of the parties who expired during pendency of the civil suit. 6. Learned counsel for review petitioners also submitted that the factum of death of these five important persons was not brought on record by the defendant petitioners while pursuing the revision petition and it goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the revision petition preferred by the defendants was abated prior to disposal on 31.05.2024, as the fact of death of five parties was not brought on record and the cause of action is not separable, therefore, the entire revision petition is liable for dismissal in abatement. He further submitted that the delay has not been explained sufficiently by the defendants while pursuing the revision petition before this Court, and without explaining the delay, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed, and the same is contrary to law. He further submitted that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and injunction, both permanent and mandatory, before the Civil Court and the suit is maintainable only before the Civil Court as the land use mentioned in order passed by the Trial Court clearly indicate that it is a mixed land use, in such a case, jurisdiction of Civil Court is available for the plaintiffs. He further submitted that if this Hon’ble Court was of the view that the suit is not maintainable before the [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (8 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] Civil Court, then it can return the suit under Order VII, Rule 10 of CPC for filing before the Revenue Court, and in such circumstances, a fresh exercise can be saved. He also submitted that on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the issue relating to jurisdiction is already framed by the Trial Court, and an issue of jurisdiction can be decided while considering Issue No. 7 as a preliminary issue. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by Learned counsel for non-applicant-Defendants on the ground that the review petition is not permissible. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. STO (1), reported as 2023 INSC 963, and submitted that once a suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court, then the option is to file an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, and a suit is liable to be rejected under Rule 11(d). He further referred the provision of abatement and submitted that a revision petition is not affected by the death of any party unless the same goes to the root of the matter. He also submitted that the review petition is filed by the persons who were well-represented in the revision petition and were present when the revision petition was considered by this Hon’ble Court. He also submitted that there is no information about death of some of the parties, and none of the legal heirs of the dead persons have approached this Court on the ground that the order dated 31.05.2024 has affected their interest and right. 8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with judgment as referred by learned counsel for non-applicants-defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (9 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] 9. The facts of the case clearly indicate that the plaintiffs have filed a suit in a representative capacity, and it is a settled proposition that death of a party in a suit filed in a representative capacity does not lead to abatement of the suit, therefore, the proceedings culminating from the suit are also governed by the same provision, and a revision petition is not abated by death of any of the parties where the suit is filed in a representative capacity. The general provision is that the surviving representatives or the other suitable persons may continue the pleadings subject to directions of the Court. In case of Raja Anand Rao Vs. Ramdas Daduram AIR 1921 PC 123 and Charan Singh & Anr. Vs. Darshan Singh AIR 1975 SC 371, it was held that abatement does not occur merely because of death of a representative plaintiff or a defendant. 10. The instant review petition is preferred by 13 plaintiffs who were respondents when revision petition was decided which means they were also aware about the death of 5 persons as mentioned hereinabove. Order 22 Rule 10-A also casts a duty upon them to intimate the death of a party during pendency of any proceeding. The plaintiffs were aware about filing of application on 23.03.2022 before the trial court for bringing legal heirs on record, and also the factum of filing of amended cause title on record on 17.07.2023 before the trial court, therefore, the duty lies upon them to provide correct facts to the notice of the Court. Considering the overall scenario, it is apparent that after dismissal of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC by the trial court, and a revision petition is filed before this Court, and there are “n” number of parties from both the sides, and the [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (10 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] process of hearing in the High Court is not akin to trial Court and it is not possible for a counsel to get in touch with his own party about the survivorship of any of the party, therefore, allowing the review only on this basis that some of the parties have died during pendency of the revision petition is not justified, as it has not caused any prejudice to any of the parties and the review petitioners have not shown any prejudice caused to them. Therefore, the order dated 31.05.2024 is not liable for review only on the ground that 5 of the 47 parties have expired during pendency of the revision petition. Thus, this is not a good ground to consider review of the petition. 11. While allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have considered the judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, and the same is a well-followed judgment by all the courts. Therefore, there is no ground to review on the basis that the defendants have failed to show sufficient cause in explaining delay of 163 days in filing the revision petition. The jurisdiction of any Court is very important while considering institution and validity of any judicial forum. This court, while considering judgment in case of Pyare Lal v. Shubendra Pilania (supra) on the basis of section 207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Land Tenancy Act, 1955 has held that a suit is not maintainable before the civil court. Since, a suit is filed in a representative capacity and a civil court has no jurisdiction, therefore the suit is required to be rejected under order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. [2025:RJ-JP:44853] (11 of 11) [CRW-49/2024] 12. In case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. S. T. O. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a judgment or an order can be reviewed provided that:- (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review . 13. Considering the material available on record and also the reasons for preferring review, no case is made out to review the order dated 31.05.2024, therefore, the review petition sans merits and same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the review petition preferred by review petitioners is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 16. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /83-S