[2025:RJ-JP:32573] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 92/2021 Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Shri Poluram Jat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Near Post Office Baral Second Tehsil Bijaianagar District Ajmer. ----Petitioner/Defendant No.3 Versus 1. Shri Santosh Devi Sharma W/o Late Himmmat Raj Sharma, R/o 301 (Three Hundred One) Mirja Bawari Road, Ward No. 24 (Twenty Four) Kishangarh District Ajmer. ---Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Shri Sampat Lal S/o Sukhdev Prasad Sharma, R/o Baral Second Tehsil Bijaianagar District Ajmer. 3. M/s Wedding Planner Lovely Event Decoration, Near Rail- way Station, Gulabbari Ajmer Through Owner Shri Nand Kishore Sharma S/o Shri Gopi Lal Sharma, Near Railway Station, Gulabbari Ajmer. ----Respondents/Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari, Adv. for Mr. Damodar Prasad Pujari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 20 /0 8 /2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.3 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 21.02.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Ajmer (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.06/2019, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 16(3), 141 and 151 CPC. [2025:RJ-JP:32573] (2 of 3) [CR-92/2021] Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for partition against the defendants in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 16(3), 141 and 151 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 21.02.2021 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the disputed property is situated at Tehsil Bijay Nagar, so, the Civil Judge, Ajmer had no jurisdiction to try the matter and the disputed prop- erty is an agricultural land, so, the suit for partition shall lie before the Revenue Court and not before the civil court. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 21.02.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only averments of the plaint are to be considered. In plaint, plaintiff had not mentioned that disputed land is an agricultural land. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that point of jurisdiction would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned coun- sel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only averments of the plaint are to be [2025:RJ-JP:32573] (3 of 3) [CR-92/2021] considered. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application because the ob- jections raised by the defendant being the mixed question of law and fact, would be decided after taking the evidence of the par- ties. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/75