[2025:RJ-JP:32942] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 101/2022 Satish Kumar Sharma Son Of Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus 1. Bhura Lal Son Of Sh. Gangasahai, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 2. Suwa Lal Son Of Sh. Gangasahai, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 3. Kalyan Prasad Son Of Sh. Gangasahai, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 4. Hariprasad Son Of Sh. Gangasahai, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 5. Prahlad Son Of Sh. Bhura Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 6. Tipu @ Mohan Son Of Sh. Laxman, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 7. Ravi Kumar Son Of Laxman, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 8. Smt. Chando Wife Of Sh. Kalyan, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 9. Smt. Sheela Wife Of Sh. Hariprasad, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 10. Smt Prem Wife Of Sh. Prahlad, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). 11. Smt. Bhagwati Wife Of Sh. Laxman, Aged About 50 Years, [2025:RJ-JP:32942] (2 of 4) [CR-101/2022] Resident Of Dhigariya, Police Station And Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anurkiti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 22/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Thanagazi, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Misc. Application No.34/62/2021, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the counter-claim filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’). Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendants also filed a counter-claim along with written statement and sought the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff in relation to land bearing khasra No. 772. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court to the effect that the counter-claim is filed with regard to agricultural land, so, civil court has no jurisdiction to try it but the trial court vide order dated 14.02.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendants in counter-claim had sought permanent injunction regarding khasra [2025:RJ-JP:32942] (3 of 4) [CR-101/2022] No. 772 rakba 0.10 hectare and as per Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Revenue Court had jurisdiction to grant permanent injunction in relation to agricultural land. So, the petition filed by the plaintiff be allowed, order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the counter-claim filed by the defendants be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) ‘Ram Kripal Das Ji Charitable Trust Vs. Phool Chand & Ors.’, reported in 2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 516. (2) ‘Vijay Singh Vs. Buddha and Ors.’, reported in 2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 673. (3) ‘Jagdish Narain Pareek Vs. Kamlesh Jain and Ors.’ in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 225/2007, decided on 02.06.2017. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff because civil court had jurisdiction to try the matter. So, the petition filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that by way of the suit, plaintiff had sought injunction with regard to agricultural land bearing khasra No. 773 and by way of counter-claim the defendants sought permanent injunction for the land bearing khasra No. 772. The trial Court while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had committed an error by observing that civil court [2025:RJ-JP:32942] (4 of 4) [CR-101/2022] had jurisdiction to grant the injunction regarding agricultural land as in the present case, the plaintiff also filed the suit regarding agricultural land. So, the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. The petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside, the matter is remanded to the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to decide the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the counter-claim afresh after taking into consideration the fact that since the plaintiff as well as defendants are claiming permanent injunction for agricultural land, whether the suit for permanent injunction shall lie before the civil Court or not. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/66