Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


STATE v KURDA RAM & ORS - CR Case No. 883 of 2001 [2006] RD-RJ 1674 (10 August 2006)

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.883/01

State & Ors. Vs. Kurda Ram & Ors.

Date of Order : 10/08/2006

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Mr. S.N. Gupta, Addl.G.A., for petitioner

None present for respondents

Instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22nd March, 2001 whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under O.7 R.11 CPC was rejected by the learned trial Judge.

Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with regard to Khasra Nos.1341 & 1342 with the prayer that he should not be dispossessed from the land in question without adopting due process of law. It is pointed out that a notice u/s.91 of the Land Revenue

Act, 1956 was served upon the respondent-plaintiff Kurda

Ram for removing the encroachment from the land in question.

After copy of plaint was served upon the defendant- petitioner, application was filed under O.7 R.11 CPC with an objection that the present dispute which has been raised by the respondent-plaintiff is a revenue mater and arises under the provisions of Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act and no such proceedings can be initiated before the Civil Court in view of statutory bar provided u/s. 207 of the Act.

Learned trial Judge after taking note of material recorded a finding that this is a mix question of law and fact which can be examined only after its adjudication and not at the initial stage. Consequently, rejected the application filed by the defendant. Hence, this revision petition.

Counsel for petitioner submits that undisputedly the land for which permanent injunction was sought by the respondent-plaintiff is agriculture land and covered under the provisions of the Act, 1956 and in view of statutory bar u/s.207 of the Act the proceedings before the Civil Court could not have been instituted and the learned trial Judge has committed a manifest error in rejecting their application under order impugned dated 22nd March, 2001.

No one has appeared to oppose the present revision petition despite service.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record.

From the material which has been placed on record, it is clearly envisaged that the respondent-plaintiff sought permanent injunction with regard to Khasra

Nos.1341 & 1342 which prima facie from bare reading of the plaint is an agriculture land for which a notice was served upon him u/s.91 of the Act, 1956 and there being a statutory bar u/s.207 of the Act. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge has committed a serious error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under

O.7 R.11 CPC.

Consequently, the order impugned dated 22nd March, 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under O.7 R.11 CPC stands allowed. However, the respondent-plaintiff will be free to proceed by availing remedy available under law. [Ajay Rastogi],J.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.