[2025:RJ-JP:15736] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 140/2024 Prakash Chand Bharti Alias Om Prakash Bharti S/o Gordhan Bharti Goswami, R/o Pipli Ka Math Village-Phulwara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mandir Shri Pipli Math, Through Next Friend Osredar- 1. Parasram Bharti S/o Late Hiralal Bharti R/o Pipli Ka Math Village-Phulwara Tehsil-Bajirpur. 2. Kishan Bharti S/o Late Haricharan Bharti, R/o Pipli Ka Math Village-Phulwara Tehsil-Bajirpur. 3. Karan Bharti S/o Late Pyarelal Bharti, R/o Pipli Ka Math Village-Phulwara Tehsil-Bajirpur. 4. State Of Government, Through District Collector Gangapur City. 5. Tehsildar, Tehsil-Vajirpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sunain Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Goyal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 08/04/2025 This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by Gram Nyayalaya, Ganagapur City, District Sawai Madhopur in civil suit No. 29/2024, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a [2025:RJ-JP:15736] (2 of 3) [CR-140/2024] civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court that present suit is related to agricultural land. So, revenue Court has jurisdiction to try it but the trial Court vide its order dated 07.03.2024 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that in the suit plaintiffs had pleaded that respondent No. 5-Tehsildar would dispossess them by invoking the provisions of Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. He further submits that proceedings initiated under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act can’t be challenged before the Civil Court. So, petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that plaintiffs had not sought any relief with regard to agricultural land. Plaintiffs are the priest of the temple. They only sought relief in their suit that they should not be stopped from performing worship of the Deity. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order. In the plaint, plaintiffs clearly mentioned that Tehsildar with connivance of the defendant may dispossess them by invoking the [2025:RJ-JP:15736] (3 of 3) [CR-140/2024] provisions of Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. So, in my considered opinion, civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit against the order in relation to proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. So, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed and order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being barred by law. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/126