[2025:RJ-JP:10958] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 36/2024 Dhaniram S/o Bhagmal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Saaken Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Satpal Yadav S/o Lal Singh Yadav, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Mukesh W/o Dhaniram, R/o Saaken Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 3. Smt. Rampati W/o Ramratan, R/o Saaken Khanpur, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 4. Bhiwadi Antigrated Development Authority, (Beeda), Bhiwadi, Tehsil Tapukada, District Alwar, Rajasthan Through Chief Executive Officer(C.e.o). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sain for Mr. Aayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/03/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-defendant aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 11.07.2023 in Civil Suit No.36/2023 by learned Civil Judge, Bhiwadi, District Alwar. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction before learned Civil Judge and prior to filing of this suit, a revenue suit was also filed before the SDO for same relief. He further submits that suit filed before [2025:RJ-JP:10958] (2 of 3) [CR-36/2024] the Civil Court is barred under Section 207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, but learned Trial Court without considering the provision of law has dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff and he submitted that both the suits were filed for different reliefs. He submits that suit before the Civil Court was filed for 10 feet wide road whereas suit before SDO was under Section 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. At last, he submitted that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. Facts giving rise to present revision petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction regarding a public way to restrain defendants including present petitioner, from narrowing or causing obstruction. During pendency of this civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed and same was dismissed. 6. A perusal of record indicates that three persons including respondent No.1 have filed a Revenue Suit No.57/2023 before SDO, Tijara, District Alwar for injunction under Section 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with regard to agricultural land Khasra No.420 Rakba 0.13 hectare, 421 Rakba 0.13 hectare and 422 Rakba 0.13 hectare, total three Rakba 0.39 hectare. In this revenue suit, no reference of road or public path way was mentioned. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by Satpal Yadav [2025:RJ-JP:10958] (3 of 3) [CR-36/2024] against defendants for a 10 feet wide public way, so as to continue to facilitate him as thorough fare. 7. A civil suit for right of way or public path way may be filed before Civil Court and jurisdiction of Civil Court is not a debateable issue. Both the suits are on different subject matter, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. As a result, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /41