Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) The appellant, Mohanlal S/o Sh. Mindra Ram, has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner, dismissing plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of sale-deed dated 02.04.2007 and recovery of possession and injunction (Civil Original Suit No.212/11- Mohanlal v. Bhikharam & Anr.) on the ground that revenue court is having jurisdiction to decide the controversy.
(2.) Mr. Nitin Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the suit only as bar of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, but essentially the suit was filed seeking cancellation of the sale-deed, which is a civil right and, therefore, the civil court had the jurisdiction to decide such controversy. In support of said contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Pratapi (Smt.) v. Jhamku & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1112, in which, the learned Single Judge held as under:- "18. In the backdrop of the position of law settled by various decisions discussed as above, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that when in a suit ancillary relief to the main relief sought is for declaration of a sale deed of an agriculture land as void ab initio, the suit can always be entertained and tried by the Revenue Court. But then, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, in no manner, bars the jurisdiction of civil court in entertaining the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed of agriculture land executed by any person without there being any title over the property. In other words, the suit regarding the cancellation of the sale deed even in respect of an agriculture land could be exclusively tried by the civil court."
(3.) Since the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the said judgment, however, the said judgment was not cited before the learned trial court, the appellant is permitted to file review petition before the learned trial court and cite the aforesaid quoted judgment and the learned trial court is expected to decide the review petition on merits in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Pratapi (supra). The court fees paid in this Court may be refunded back to the appellant since the appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage directing the appellant to file review petition before the trial court.;