[2025:RJ-JP:34332] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 77/2022 1. Phailiram S/o Govinda, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 2. Meethalal S/o Phailiram, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 3. Motilal S/o Phailiram, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 4. Shyoram S/o Phailiram, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 5. Laxminarayan S/o Phailiram, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) ---Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. Moolya S/o Kalya, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 2. Chhotu S/o Kalya, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 3. Ramkhiladi S/o Ranjeeta, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 4. Lohadiram S/o Ranjeeta, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Ranoli, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) ---Plaintiffs-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 28/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short the defendant) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (for short ‘the trial court’) in Case [2025:RJ-JP:34332] (2 of 3) [CR-77/2022] No.43/2022, titled as “Moolya & Ors. V/s. Phailram & Ors.” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the disputed land is agricultural land. As per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction and only the revenue court has jurisdiction to try the suit but the trial court vide order dated 29.03.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants, wrongly arrived at the conclusion that whether the disputed land is agricultural land or not, would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by he defendants be allowed, the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the present suit is not regarding the agricultural land. The plaintiffs sought the relief that the defendants should not evict them without following due process of law. Therefore, the suit pertains to the infringement of civil rights and the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate it. So, the petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:34332] (3 of 3) [CR-77/2022] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.120/2021 titled as “Budharmal Saini & Anr. V/s. Jugalkishore & Anr.” decided on 16.03.2022. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order dated 29.03.2022. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction regarding the agricultural land. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in arriving at the finding whether the disputed land is agricultural land or not, would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/66