1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REV.APPLICATION NO.75 OF 2009. Bhagwandin Bhiku Patariya and others ..vs.. Smt.Ramkali Babulal Patariya and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 16th November, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.P.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This revision challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Warora, whereby he rejected an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs had instituted a suit claiming injunction against the applicants/defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit property. It was the contention of the respondents/plaintiffs that Babulal was the tenant of 2 the suit property and he has been so declared as a tenant by the Revenue Court. The respondents/ plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of said Babulal. They alleged that the applicants/defendants are trying to disturb their possession. 4. The applicants/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the suit was not maintainable because respondents/plaintiffs have filed a proceedings seeking status quo in respect of the property, before the Sub-Divisional Officer and therefore, the present suit was not maintainable before the Civil court. It is their case that the order of status quo has been passed by the S.D.O. and therefore also such a suit was not maintainable. 5. The learned Judge of the trial court rejected the application. 6. Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C. contemplates rejection of a plaint where the court inherently lacks the jurisdiction in entertaining the suit. This is a simple suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents. Simply because the plaintiffs have filed another proceedings before the S.D.O. and he has passed an order granting status quo, that does not 3 prevent the plaintiffs from instituting the civil suit and claiming an injunction. Plaint can be rejected only when there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This dispute is definitely of a civil nature and it cannot be said that the Civil court does not have a jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. 7. Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that by virtue of provisions of Section 124 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, the Civil court cannot entertain such a suit. The submission has no force. Every person has a right to claim protection from the Civil court where dispute is of a civil nature. If there is any other dispute with regard to the tenancy, the only course that would be available is to refer the issue to the competent revenue court. But even when such an issue is required to be decided by the Revenue Court, it does not prevent civil court from entertaining the suit. At the most that decision rendered by the revenue court may bind the civil court and in that case the party may have a right to say that the decision of the revenue court is res judicata. In view of this, trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C. The revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application 4 before the appropriate forum. JUDGE. chute