[2025:RJ-JP:34627] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156/2024 1. Rama Devi W/o Late Gajraj Singh, R/o Near Bsnl Office, Hindoli, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 2. Vikram Singh S/o Late Shri Gajraj Singh, R/o Near Bsnl Office, Hindoli, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) ---Defendant Nos.1 and 2-Petitioners Versus 1. Babulal S/o Shri Ramlal Alias Rama, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Hindoli, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) Mobile No. 9680100970 2. Kamlesh S/o Shri Ramlal Alias Rama, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Hindoli, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) Mobile No. 8890641024 Plaintiff-Respondents 3. Patwar Halka, Hindoli Patwari Jagmohan Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 4. Field Kanoongo Hindoli, Yuvraj Singh Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 5. Nayab Tehsildar Hindoli, Tehsil Hindoli Presently Acting Tehsildar Sahab, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 6. Tehsildar Sahab, Tehsil Hindoli District Bundi (Raj.) (Name Entered When Post Is Established) 7. Sub Divisional Officer, Hindoli, Distt. Bundi (Raj.) 8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.) ---ProformaDefendants-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 29/08/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:34627] (2 of 3) [CR-156/2024] This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 and 2 (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Hindoli, District Bundi (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.57/2023, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs(for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendants as well as respondent Nos.3 to 8 in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs regarding the agricultural land shall lie before the revenue court and not before the civil court but the trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants because the objections raised by the defendants are mixed questions of law and fact, which would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and counsel for the plaintiffs. [2025:RJ-JP:34627] (3 of 3) [CR-156/2024] It is an admitted position that the disputed land is the agricultural land and by way of the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the plaintiffs sought the relief with regard to the agricultural land. In my considered opinion, the suit with regard to injunction of agricultural land shall lie before the Revenue Court and not before the Civil Court. So, the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. The petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 05.03.2024 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, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/60