1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2011 (Sachin s/o Ramesh Murale and another vs. Shriram Mandir Sansthan and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P.S. Raut, Advocate for the applicants. Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 7. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 28, 2011 The above civil revision application challenges the order dated 25/10/2010 passed by the learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati whereby the Applications (Exhs. 13 and 34) filed under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the applicants came to be rejected. The applicants herein are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 200/2009 filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 7 herein. The substantive reliefs sought in the suit are reproduced hereunder : 2 “(a) It be declared that the Will Deed dated 5/8/2006 is illegal and void ab initio, being obtained by practising fraud and undue influence and also being violative to the provisions of B.T.A.L. Act, (b) The possession of the defendants no.1 and 2 on the suit field be declared as illegal and unauthorised. (c) The possession of the suit field may please be given to the plaintiffs from defendants no.1 and 2.” The said reliefs have been sought in the context of the claim of the applicants that they have become owners of the land in question by virtue of the Will Deed executed by their grandfather in their favour. The plaintiffs, i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 7 herein purporting that the Will Deed is dated 5/8/2006 have inter alia claimed the reliefs including the relief sought by way of prayer clause (a). The applicants herein on the ground that since plaintiffs are seeking possession of the suit field and since predecessor of the applicants herein had produced the certificate, which was granted to their predecessor in the year 1977, raised an 3 objection on the ground that the issue of tenancy arises and since the lands are agricultural lands covered by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in terms of Section 124 of the said Act. The applicants, therefore, filed the said Applications invoking Order VII Rule 11 and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Exhs. 13 and 34). The Trial Court considered the said two Applications and taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs were challenging the Will of Madhaorao, i.e. grandfather of the applicants and since Authorities either under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 or the Bombay Public Trusts Act would not be in a position to adjudicate upon the legality and validity of the Will and it is for the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the same, rejected the said Applications. The learned Counsel for the applicants states that the applicants have already filed their Written Statement and, therefore, challenge to the order dated 25/10/2010 does not survive. 4 In my view, the reasons given by the Trial Court for rejecting the said Applications (Exhs. 13 and 34) are unexceptional and do not warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision application is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say that none of the issues arising in the suit can be said to have been dealt with by this order and the parties are free to agitate the same before the trial Court. JUDGE khj