Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition filed under Sec. 115 of CPC is directed against the order dt 16.07.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 16/2011, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners -defendants Nos. 2 to 4, filed under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, for the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 -plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. According to him, the said property was the personal property of late Shri Raghurajsingh Ji as per the order passed by the Jagir Commissioner, and therefore, the said property could not be subjected to any civil proceedings, as per bar contained in Section 46 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). He further submitted that the plaint of the respondents -plaintiffs was liable to be rejected as in the plaint itself the plaintiffs had made the averments with regard to the order passed by the Jagir Commissioner.
(2.) THE Court does not find substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is needless to say that the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. So far as Section 46 of the said Act is concerned, it reads as under: - - Section 46. Bar of jurisdiction. - -(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any Officer or Authority under this Act. (2) No order made by any such Officer or Authority under this Act shall be called in question in any Court. From the bare reading of the said provision, it clearly transpires that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or Revenue Court is barred only in respect of the matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any Officer or Authority under the Act. So far as the subject matter of the suit in question is concerned, it is filed by the respondents -plaintiffs seeking partition and permanent injunction of the suit property. Such an issue as to whether the suit property is liable to be partitioned or not, could not be decided by the Authority or the Officer under the Act. Even otherwise, the issue of jurisdiction would be a mixed question of law and fact, and the same could not be decided in the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. As stated hereinabove the said provision could be invoked, when from the averments made in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred under any law. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any specific bar under the said Act. The impugned order therefore being just and proper, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The revision petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.;