P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By this misc. appeal, the appellants -plaintiffs have assailed the impugned order dt. 1st September, 2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Dungarpur, whereby the learned Court below has returned the plaint to the appellants -plaintiffs by resorting to Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
(2.) PRECISELY , in the plaint, the appellants have sought relief of cancellation of gift deed with other ancillary reliefs. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sandeep Shah, has argued that relief of cancellation of a registered instrument can be granted by the civil Courts and for such relief revenue Courts are not competent Courts to adjudicate. Inviting attention of this Court towards Section 9 CPC, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that jurisdiction of civil Courts is very wide and there is a strong presumption about jurisdiction of civil Courts to adjudicate all civil disputes. This position is also clearly discernible from Section 9 of CPC. Learned counsel for the appellants for this proposition has placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Badri Lal vs. Modha,, RLW 1979 164. Full Bench of this Court has held that if the part of relief to the plaintiff can be granted by civil Courts and part of the relief can be granted by revenue Courts, then the plaint is required to be entertained and tried by the civil Courts for the relief cognizable by it. Full Bench made following observations in para 14 of the verdict: - 14. It is, therefore, clear that out of the two main reliefs referred to above, one can be granted by a revenue Court and the other can be granted by a civil Court. In view of the two main reliefs asked by the plaintiffs, in our opinion, it is a suit dealing with composite matters S. 242 of the Act makes provisions of dealing with such composite matters. It runs as under: Sec. 242. Procedure when plea of tenancy rights raised in civil Courts: (1) If, in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a civil Court, any question regarding tenancy right arises and such question has not previously been determined by a revenue Court of competent jurisdiction, the civil Court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and submit the record to the appropriate revenue Court for the decision of that issue only. Explanation: -A plea of tenancy which is clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court shall not be deemed to raise a plea of tenancy. (2) The revenue Court, after refraining the issue, if necessary, shall decide such issue only, and return the record together with its finding thereon, the civil Court which submitted it. (3) The civil Court shall then proceed to decide the suit, accepting the finding of the revenue Court on the issue referred to it. (4) The finding of the revenue Court on the issue referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be a part of the finding of the civil Court.
(3.) IN this case, the plaintiffs have joined more than one causes of action in the suit, namely, (1) pertaining to draw 1/6th water from the well and (ii) relating to take water in the existing drain through the land of defendant No. 1 on the basis of right of easement. We have already held that one cause of action is such that it is not triable by a revenue Court. It is, therefore, clear that portion of claim made in the plaint is triable by a civil Court and the other portion is triable by a revenue Court. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the suit could rightly be taken cognizance of by a civil Court and what would be necessary is to refer the issue regarding the claim to draw 1/6 water from the well which relates to the tenancy rights, to the revenue Court, if at all it is found necessary to do so.";