Hindustan Zinc Ltd. @APPELLANT@Hash Ladu Lal

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.2.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

The respondents - plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming the following reliefs:-

“vr% Jheku ls izkFkZuk gS fd oknhx.kksa dk okn Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknh bl vk’k; dh fMØh ikfjr QjekbZ tkos dh xzke

cksfn;kuk rgÅ' o ftyk fpRrkSM+xds dksbZ n[kyvankth uk djs rFkk mDr vkjkth;kr es dksbZ Hkh fo|qr ykbZu uk fudkys uk gh dksbZ Qly dh uqdlku igwapkos uk gh oknhx.kksa dh lEifRr

dks dksbZ uqdlku igawpkosA bl vkâ€​k; dh fMØh ikfjr QjekbZ tkosaAâ€​

It was, inter alia, claimed in the plaint that the suit pertained to attempt on part of the defendant in trying to drawn electricity line from the land of the

petitioner, its unauthorized presence, setting up of poles etc. Based on the allegations made in the plaint regarding the defendant not entitled to

undertake the said activities of drawing of electricity line from the land of the petitioner, the relief as claimed hereinbefore, was prayed for.

The petitioner â€" defendant filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act of

1955’) and Section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Act of 2003’). It was, inter alia, claimed that the suit was barred by law,

inasmuch as, the land in question was agricultural in nature and under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955, no Court other than the

Revenue Court can take cognizance of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of

suit or application before the Revenue Court and as the nature of prayer in the suit i.e. perpetual injunction, is governed by the provisions of Section

188 of the Act of 1955 and the prayer for temporary injunction is governed by Section 212 of the said Act, the suit was barred by limitation. Further,

based on the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act also, plea was raised.

The application was contested by the respondents â€"plaintiffs.

The trial court after hearing the parties, inter alia, came to the following conclusion:-

“fooknxzLr Hkwfe iwBkSyh xkoa esa fLFkr gS vkSj bl fookn dks jkLrs ds vf/kdkj ds leku gh fy;k tkuk gSA blds vfrfjDr /kkjk 251¼2½

jktLFkku dkLrdkjh vf/kfu;e 1955 esa Hkh ;g Li""V izko/kku gS fd ^^bl /kkjk ds varxZr ikfjr dksbZ vkKk fdlh O;fDr dks ,sls vf/kdkj ;k lq[kkpkj dks

LFkkfir djus ls fooftZr ugha djsxh ftlds fy, og l{ke flfoy U;k;ky; esa fu;fer fof/k ls okn izLrqr djds nkok izLrqr dj ldrk gksA bl izdkj mDr leLr foospu ls

;gh izdV gksrk gS fd gLrxr izdj.k esa okn&i= esa mYysf[kr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij okn dh lquokbZ dh vf/kdkfjrk jktLo U;k;ky; dks u gksdj flfoy U;k;ky;

dks gSAâ€​

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court fell in error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as admittedly the

land in question was agricultural in nature and the suit was a simple suit for injunction, which could be maintained under the provisions of Section 188

and 212 of the Act of 1955 and consequently, the suit before the Civil Court was barred under Section 207 of the Act of 1955.

It was submitted that reliance placed by the trial court on Section 251(2)Â of the Act of 1955, is apparently misplaced as the same has no application

to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the plaint is liable to be rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents â€" plaintiffs supported the order impugned. It was submitted that looking to the nature of the suit,

wherein, the petitioner was sought to be restrained from putting up electricity lines from across the plaintiffs’ agricultural land, the suit was

maintainable before the Civil Courts and the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The averments made in the plaint, as noticed hereinbefore, as well as the relief claimed, clearly indicates that the suit pertained to an agricultural land

comprised in Arazi No.200 & 201 and relief claimed pertain to non-interference and not drawing of the electricity lines and further not to harm the

crop in question.

The provisions of Section 188 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:-

“188. Injunction against wrongful ejectment- (1) Any tenant whose right to or enjoyment of the whole or a part of his holding is invaded or

threatened to be invaded by his landholder or any other person may bring a suit for the grant of a perpetual injunction.â€​

The above provision specially provides for filing of a suit for grant of perpetual injunction in a case, where right to or enjoyment of the whole or a part

of his holding is invaded or threatened.

The provisions of Section 212, which are akin to provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC provides for grant of temporary injunction during the

course of any suit or proceeding under the Act of 1955.

Section 207 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:-

“207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only â€" (1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be

heard and determined by a revenue court.

(2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in

respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.â€​

The provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 clearly provides that the suits specified in the III Schedule shall be heard and determined by a

Revenue Court and no other Court shall take cognizance of any suit or application, which can be dealt with by the Revenue Courts.

As the nature of the suit and application for temporary injunction as filed by the plaintiffs clearly fall within Section 188 / 212 of the Act of 1955, the

same before the Civil Court was apparently barred under Section 207 of the Act of 1955.

The trial court relying on provisions of Section 251(2) of the Act of 1955 held the suit as maintainable. Section 251 reads as under:-

“251. Rights of way and other private easement â€" (1) In the event of any holder of land, in actual enjoyment of a right of way or other easement

or right, having, without his consent, been disturbed in such enjoyment otherwise than in due course of law, the Tehsildar may, on the application of the

holder of land so disturbed and after making a summary inquiry into the fact of such enjoyment and disturbance, order the disturbance to be removed

or stopped and the applicant-holder to be restored to such enjoyment, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up before the Tehsildar against

such restoration.

(2). No order passed under this Section shall debar any person from establishing such right or easement as he may claim by a regular suit in a

competent civil court.â€​

A bare look at the above provision would reveal that the same pertains to right of way and other private easement. In the present case, the plaint does

not seeks any right of way and /or private easement, there are no allegations worth the name dealing with the disturbance of right of way or other

private easement by the defendants. In view thereof, the provision of Section 251 of the Act of 1955 had no application to the facts of the present

case and the trial court clearly fell in error in relying on the said provision for holding that the suit could be maintained before the Civil Court.

In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed. The order dated 8.2.2016 passed by the trial court is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is

allowed. The plaint filed by the petitioner in Civil Original Suit No.26/2015 (Ladu Lal v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.) pending before the Court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chittorgarh shall stand rejected.

No order as to costs.