[2026:RJ-JP:32172] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15631/2026 CNR: RJHC020768562026 | URN: CW / 33270U / 2026 Ishwar Chand Todi, S/o Late Shri Bihari Lal Todi, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Chokha Ka Bass, Tehsil Sikar Gramin District Sikar. ----Petitioner/Appellant/Defendant Versus 1. Paru D/o Shri Chandraram, W/o Shri Mohanlal Mahla, R/o Village Kadma Ka Bass, Tehsil Sikar Gramin, Presently Residing At Village Ladwa, Tehsil Dhod And District Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Durga Devi D/o Shri Chandraram, W/o Shri Bhanaram Khichar, R/o Village Kadma Ka Bass, Tehsil Sikar Gramin, Presently Residing At Raigaro Ki Dhani , Village Tan Chundawali Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan). 3. Jinkudevi D/o Shri Chandraram W/o Shri Jeevanram Godara, R/o Village Kadma Ka Bass, Tehsil Sikar Gramin Presently Residing At Village Chandpura, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondent/Non-Appellant/Plaintiff 4. Narsiram, S/o Late Chandraram, R/o Village Kadma Ka Bass, Tehsil Sikar, Village Sikar (Rajasthan). 5. Tehsildar Ji, Tehsil Sikar Gramin. 6. Patwari, Patwar Halka Dujod, , Tehsil Sikar Gramin , District Sikar Rajasthan. ----Performa-Respondents/Non-Appellant/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar with Mr. Bharat Kumar Todi, Mr. Lakshya Sharma, Mr. Shubham Rohila & Mr. Vaibhav Nirmal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/08/2026 1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, 'RAA') in an appeal filed by the private respondent against dismissal of suit under [2026:RJ-JP:32172] (2 of 3) [CW-15631/2026] Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He has also put to question order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the RAA has also been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association Vs. Global IEEE Institute for Engineers (Civil Appeal No.7235/2025) decided on 27.05.2025, wherein following observations were given: "5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondent, we observe that in a case where an appeal is filed by being aggrieved by the rejection of a plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court ought not to have granted an order of temporary injunction. We say so for the reason that the plaint itself has been rejected by the Commercial Court and the correctness or otherwise of the said rejection is a matter at large before the High Court. When the plaint itself has been rejected, it cannot be said that the appeal filed against such an order is a continuation of a suit. It may be that in the commercial suit the respondent herein had the benefit of an interim injunction, but once the plaint has been rejected by the trial court i.e. the Commercial Court, in the instant case, until it is revived/restored, an order of temporary injunction cannot operate against the defendant in the suit, who is the respondent in the appeal filed against the rejection of the plaint. In other words, it is necessary that there ought to be a subsisting plaint in order to seek an order of temporary injunction." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in an appeal filed by the aggrieved party against the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the interim order cannot be granted. 4. This Court finds that without raising this issue before the RAA, the petitioner had approached Board of Revenue against an interim order by way of filing revision petition, which was otherwise not maintainable in view of Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. [2026:RJ-JP:32172] (3 of 3) [CW-15631/2026] 5. For the reasons mentioned above, this Court finds that without raising the objection, as raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition at the strength of judgment of IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association (supra), the present writ petition cannot be entertained, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise this point before the RAA by way of filing specific application. In case, any such application is filed by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, the RAA is directed to consider the same and to decide strictly in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month thereafter. 6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 6/DAKSH