[2025:RJ-JP:19687] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 70/2021 Deveshwar Prasad Gupta Son Of Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Lala Sitaram Rameshwar Prasad Itar Wale, Near Hotel Pravasi, Madar Gate Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bani Gopal Agarwal Son Of Madangopal Agarwal, R/o Ratangunj, Ganedhiwal Trades, Naya Bazar, Ajmer 2. Chatrurbuj Singhal Son Of Ramrichpal Agarwal, R/o Ratangunj, Ganedhiwal Trades, Naya Bazar, Ajmer 3. Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Development Authority Office, Ajmer. 4. The Regional Manager, Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aayush Agarwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 12/05/2025 The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 130/2020 titled as "Beni Gopal Agarwal and Anr. Vs. Deveshwar Prasad Gupta and Ors." whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos. 1 & 2-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit under [2025:RJ-JP:19687] (2 of 4) [CR-70/2021] Order VII Rule 1 CPC with the prayer that not to dispossess him forcefully and without due process of law and not to issue the NOC in favour of defendant No. 2 in relation to land of khasra No. 553 and not to include the same in the survey and measurement report. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with 151 CPC before the trial Court that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs and also submits that present suit was related to the agricultural land. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant No. 2-Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer had not issued any NOC in favour of plaintiffs. So, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs but the trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman Vs. Pooniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee in civil appeal No. 4841/2012 decided on 03.07.2012. 2. South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. in civil appeal No. 1116/1981 decided on 13.03.1996. [2025:RJ-JP:19687] (3 of 4) [CR-70/2021] 3. Mannu Ram Meena and Anr. Vs. Kailash Chand in civil revision petition No. 140/2021 decided on 01.02.2023. 4. Maman Singh Vs. Rohitash Singh and Ors. in civil revision petition No. 244/2022 decided on 29.04.2025. 5. Hastimal and Ors. Vs. Mrs. Pushpa Devi and Ors. in civil revision petition No. 84/2017 decided on 20.11.2020. 6. Karan and ors. Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan and Ors. in civil revision petition No. 54/2015 decided on 09.05.2018. 7. Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram and ors. in SBCMA No. 969/2008 decided on 24.09.2008. 8. Lal Singh Jhala Vs. Panna Lal in civil misc. appeal No. 1644/2012 decided on 22.08.2016. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that plaintiffs had not sought any relief with regard to agricultural land. Plaintiffs had filed a suit that defendant No. 1 in connivance of the defendant No. 2 wanted to include the land of the plaintiffs. So, they sought the injunction not to issue any NOC regarding the land bearing khasra No. 553. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, the 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. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant as well as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in which plaintiffs' allegation is that defendant wanted to include the plaintiffs' land bearing khasra No. 553 for procuring the NOC. A [2025:RJ-JP:19687] (4 of 4) [CR-70/2021] perusal of the plaint clearly reveals that no NIT has been issued till today. Plaintiffs wanted to challenge the NOC which is going to be issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of defendant with regard to agricultural land. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in entertaining the present suit. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit which pertains to agricultural land. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed and order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint filed by the plaintiffs for its presentation before the proper jurisdictional Court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/97