[2025:RJ-JP:9160] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2018 1. Smt. Chandrakanta Jain Wife Of Shri Pawan Kumar, Daughter Of Late Shri Tara Chand Jain 2. Smt. Kanchan Devi Jain Wife Of Shri Madhup Kumar Jain, (Now Deceased) 2/1.Madhup Kumar Sanchi husband of Late Smt. Kanchan Jain 2/2.Dhanesh Sanchi son of late Smt. Kanchan Jain Both are resident of outside Gangapole Gate, Jain Garden, Badanpura, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus Mahendra Jain Son Of Late Shri Tara Chand Jain, Resident Of Bas Badanpura, Jain Garden, Jaipur Raj.. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 03/03/2025 Matter comes up on an application (I.A.No.1/2024) filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Order 22 Rule 9 CPC. Application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner No. 2 Smt. Kanchan Devi as described in para No.3 of the application are taken on record and the abatement, if any, stands set aside. Amended cause title which is filed with the application is taken on record. This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- [2025:RJ-JP:9160] (2 of 3) [CW-11603/2018] plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') against the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil appeal No. 18/2018 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed and the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by Addditional Civil Judge No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan in civil suit No. 43/2018, while disposing of the application filed by the defendant-respondent (for short 'the defendant') under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and returning the plaint alongwith temporary injunction application for their presentation in proper court, has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with 151 CPC before the trial Court. Trial Court vide its order dated 16.04.2018 disposed of the application filed by the defendant and returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC alongwith temporary injunction application for presentation before the proper Court. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.04.2018, the plaintiffs filed a civil appeal before the appellate Court, but the appellate Court vide order dated 24.04.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that by filing the suit, the plaintiffs sought the relief of injunction. So, the learned Civil Court was competent to adjudicate the suit. Therefore, the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the trial Court as well as the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the appellate Court be set aside and trial court be directed to adjudicate the suit filed by the plaintiffs on merits. [2025:RJ-JP:9160] (3 of 3) [CW-11603/2018] Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was related to agricultural land. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try the same. So, the trial Court as well as appellate Court had not committed any error in returning the plaint filed by the plaintiffs for presentation before the proper court. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that the land was related to agriculture. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in returning the plaint filed by the plaintiffs for its presentation to the proper court. So the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the trial Court as well as the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiffs being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/141