[2025:RJ-JP:25817] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 58/2021 1. Gokul Meena S/o Chhangaram Meena, Aged About 90 Years, R/o Village Moonpur, Tehsil Rajgarh (Alwar). Raj. 2. Narsi Ram Meena S/o Shri Gokul Meena, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Moonpur, Tehsil Rajgarh (Al- war). Rajasthan. 3. Prahlad Meena S/o Shri Gokul Meena, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Moonpur, Tehsil Rajgarh (Al- war). Rajasthan. 4. Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Narsi Ram Meena, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Moonpur, Tehsil Raj- garh (Alwar). Rajasthan. 5. Harkesh Meena S/o Shri Narsi Ram Meena, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Moonpur, Tehsil Rajgarh (Al- war). Rajasthan. ----Petitioners-Defendants Versus 1. Giriraj Prasad Meena S/o Shri Ramkaran Meena, Resident Of Village Moonpur, Tehsil Rajgarh (Alwar), Rajasthan. 2. Shiv Dayal Meena S/o Shri Ramkaran Meena, Resident Of Village Moonpur, Tehsil Rajgarh (Alwar). Rajasthan. 3. Government Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Al- war (Rajasthan) 4. Deputy District Collector, Rajgarh (Alwar), Rajasthan. 5. Tehsildar, Rajgarh (Alwar), Rajathan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gulab Chand Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 12/07/2025 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defen- dants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against [2025:RJ-JP:25817] (2 of 3) [CR-58/2021] the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by Senior Civil Judge No.1, Rajgarh (Alwar) (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.3/2021 whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the de- fendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 207 of Ra- jasthan Tenancy Act. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in which the defen- dants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act but the trial Court vide or- der dated 23.03.2021 dismissed the application filed by the defen- dants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants had filed a suit against the plaintiffs under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in which proceedings are going on, but by way of present suit, the plaintiffs wanted to restrain the de- fendants and government officials to create the way. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that it is an ad- mitted position that the disputed land is an agricultural land. De- fendants filed a suit before the revenue authorities for determina- tion of the dispute with regard to the way. So, the plaintiffs had an opportunity to adjudicate the matter before the Revenue Court. Civil Court had no power for issuing injunction in relation to the proceedings pending before the Revenue Court as well as declara- tion of way. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:25817] (3 of 3) [CR-58/2021] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that plain- tiffs had filed the suit to protect his civil rights, so the present suit was not barred by law. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned coun- sel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the predecessors of the defen- dants had filed the suit before the revenue authorities under Sec- tion 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in which proceedings are going on. By way of present suit, the plaintiffs wanted to eclipse the proceedings before the Revenue Court. Revenue Court had right to determine the dispute regarding the way. It is also an admitted position that the disputed land is an agricultural land. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. So, the trial Court had committed an error in dis- missing the application filed by the defendants. So, the revision petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed for want of jurisdic- tion. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/85