Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 26.11.13 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 20, Chomu, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 12/13, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint of the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Daga for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given the sufficient opportunity of hearing by the trial court while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. According to him the petitioner could not engage the advocate as the case was transferred from Jaipur to Chomu. He further submitted that the suit of the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff was barred by law of limitation as well as was barred under the provisions contained in Section 207 of the Tenancy Act. He further submitted that the civil court did not have the jurisdiction as the reliefs claimed in the suit could be granted by the revenue court only and not by the civil court. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to the impugned order as also of the copy of the plaint, it appears that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking setting aside of the Will allegedly executed by her father late Shri Narayan Singh and has also sought relief of partition and mutation of her name in respect of her share in the property. It cannot be gainsaid that such a relief seeking setting aside of the Will could not be granted by the revenue court. Therefore the court does not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is barred under the provisions contained in Section 207 of the Tenancy Act. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or not and whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not would be the questions to be decided by the trial court after appreciating the evidence. Under the circumstances, the court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to file application before the trial court for deciding the issue of jurisdiction and limitation as preliminary issues. It is needless to say that the trial court shall decide such application, if filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
(3.) IN that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.;