[2025:RJ-JP:29787] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 96/2021 Rakesh Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Bherulal Nagar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Behid Pipleshwar Mahadev Mandir, Dcm Road, Raipura, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajendra Prasad S/o Ram Narayan, Resident Of Village Raipura, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.) 2. Smt. Ramkanya Bai W/o Late Shri Ram Narayan Ji, Resident Of Village Raipura, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Mirtunjya Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 05/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by Civil Judge (South), Kota in Civil Suit No.226/2021, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondents (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act but the trial court vide order dated 15.07.2021 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiffs in their para 1 of the plaint mentioned agriculture land in which their share is 1/60-1/60. [2025:RJ-JP:29787] (2 of 2) [CR-96/2021] Admittedly, disputed land is agriculture land and plaintiffs sought the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction. Civil court had no jurisdiction to try it but trial court vide order dated 15.07.2021 wronlgy dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that the plaintiffs not only sought the injunction but they also sought the compensation on account of wrong act of the defendant. So, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, present petition filed by the defendant 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 had sought the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant because only revenue court had jurisdiction for entertaining the suit in relation to agriculture land. So, present petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the trial court is set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /87