HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 49/2025 Suwalal S/o Nathuram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan ----Petitioner-Defendant No.2 Versus 1. Anchi Devi W/o Late Shri Bheekha, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 2. Kamla Devi D/o Late Shri Bheekha, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 3. Kishore Kumar S/o Late Shri Bheekha, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 4. Choti Devi D/o Shri Jodha, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 5. Dholi Devi D/o Shri Jodha, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 6. Puranmal S/o Late Shri Bheekha, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 7. Pushpa Devi D/o Late Shri Bheekha, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 8. Phoolchand S/o Shri Jodha, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 9. Barji Devi D/o Shri Jodha, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 10. Basant Kumar S/o Shri Jodha, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District (2 of 8) [CR-49/2025] Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 11. Mangli Devi D/o Shri Jodha, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 12. Mahendra S/o Shri Jodha, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 13. Soni Devi D/o Late Shri Bheekha, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan Respondents/Plaintiffs 14. Ramgopal S/o Nathuram, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 15. Murlidhar S/o Nathuram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 16. Prahlad S/o Nathuram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 17. Murli Devi D/o Nathuram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 18. Panchi Devi D/o Nathuram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 19. Dinesh S/o Late Arjunlal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 20. Rajendra S/o Late Arjunlal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 21. Shriram S/o Late Arjunlal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 22. Bhuri W/o Late Arjunlal, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan (3 of 8) [CR-49/2025] 23. Geeta D/o Late Arjunlal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 24. Sundi Devi D/o Late Arjunlal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 25. Mangilal S/o Geega, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 26. Sitaram S/o Geega, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 27. Madanlal S/o Geega, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 28. Gyarsi Devi W/o Geega, Aged About 84 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 29. Manbhari Devi D/o Geega, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 30. Sushila Devi D/o Geega, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 31. Radha D/o Geega, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 32. Choti Devi D/o Geega, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 33. Paudha Devi D/o Geega, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 34. Chauthmal S/o Dolaram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 35. Chauthi D/o Kanaram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan (4 of 8) [CR-49/2025] 36. Jagdish S/o Kanaram, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 37. Teeja D/o Kanaram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 38. Babulal S/o Dolaram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 39. Babulal S/o Kanaram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 40. Bridichand S/o Dolaram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 41. Mohanlal S/o Kanaram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 42. Ramodi D/o Dolaram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 43. Santi D/o Dolaram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Tan Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 44. Patwari, Halka Thoi, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 45. Land Holder, Through Tehsildar Srimadhopur 46. Assistant Collector, Fast Track, Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Now District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 47. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Neem Ka Thana ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gautam Bhadadra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shristi Mathur, Adv. for proforma respondent Nos.25, 27, 34, 38 & 40 (5 of 8) [CR-49/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 07/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2 (for short the defendant No.2) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.36/2024, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent-plaintiff Nos.1 to 13 (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for cancellation of the preliminary decree dated 15.06.2023, final decree dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Collector Fast Track, Srimadhopur, District Neemkathana in case No. 72/2023 titled as “Ramgopal & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.”, cancellation of mutation No.293 dated 17.10.2023 and permanent injunction in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 31.01.2025 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that as per the averment made in the plaint, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 had filed a suit before the Assistant Collector Fast Track, Srimadhopur against the defendant Nos.7 to 31 regarding partition and permanent injunction of land bearing Khasra No.2266, 2273 to 2277, 2311 to 2316 total 12 Rakba, 2.52 Hectare in which the defendant Nos.7 to 9, 13, 15 and 27 filed a (6 of 8) [CR-49/2025] written statement with counter claim in which the plaintiffs were not a party. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the judgment and decrees passed by the Assistant Collector are with regard to the revenue land, therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The plaintiffs should have filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the said judgment but Instead of filing an appeal, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of the judgment and decrees passed by the Assistant Collector, Fast Track Srimadhopur as null and void, which is not maintainable. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Jagdish Narain Pareek Vs. Kamlesh Jain & Ors. Reported in 2017(4) RLW 3434 (Raj.). (2). Karan Singh Chouhan & Ors. Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur & Ors. Reported in 2018(3) RLW 1988 (Raj.). (3). Sunil and Ors. Vs. Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd. And Ors. Reported in 2025: RJJD: 462. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that in the said decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Fast Track Srimadhopur in “Ramgopal & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.”, the plaintiffs were not made a party. The said judgment and decrees were passed fraudulently and only the civil court has a jurisdiction (7 of 8) [CR-49/2025] to set-aside the same. So, the trial court vide order dated 31.01.2025 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the petition filed by the defendant be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Horil Vs. Keshav & Another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 525 (2). Gurucharansingh & Ors. Vs. Gurdayal Kaur and Ors. Reported in AIR 1982 Raj 91. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. By way of the suit, the plaintiffs challenged the preliminary decree dated 15.06.2023 and final decree dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Collector Fast Track, Srimadhopur, District Neemkathana in “Ramgopal & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.” It is an admitted position that the said judgment and decree were passed with regard to agricultural land. Contention of the plaintiffs is that while passing the said judgments and decree, they were not impleaded as a party respondents. The said judgment and decree were passed fraudulently. In my considered opinion, the plaintiffs had a remedy to challenge the said judgments and decree before the Revenue Appellate Authority but instead of filing an appeal, they filed a suit regarding revenue land before the civil court and the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit and dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, (8 of 8) [CR-49/2025] the present revision petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/69