Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) By the Court: - WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties the appeal is decided finally at the admission stage. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant -plaintiff under Section 96 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment & decree dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in the Civil Suit No. 63/2012, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondents No. 1 -7 -original -defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, rejecting the plaint of the appellant -plaintiff.
(2.) It is the case of the appellant -plaintiff that appellant is a society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. The respondents No. 1 to 6 had entered into an agreement dated 28.08.1993 to sell the suit land to the appellant -society. However, the respondent No. 1 allegedly made gift of the said land to the respondent No. 7 on 13.06.2012, and therefore the appellant -plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement in question. In the said suit, the respondents -defendants filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The said application was resisted by the appellant -plaintiff by filing the reply. The trial court by the impugned order allowed the said application and dismissed the suit of the appellant -plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, deemed as decree, the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Ashok Mishra for the appellant -plaintiff that none of the clauses of Rule 11 of Order VII were attracted for rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff. According to him, Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, does not bar any filing of the suit, and therefore the plaint could not be rejected under clause(d) of the said provisions. He further submitted that it would be a matter of evidence whether the suit land is an agricultural land or not, and whether the respondents -defendants are khatedari tenants or not within the meaning of Section 15 of the said Tenancy Act, and therefore such suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11.;