[2025:RJ-JP:30954] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 104/2021 Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Unknown, Temporary R/o G Block Maharaja Agrasen Nagar, Shriram Ki Naangal, Vatika Road, Sanganer Jaipur, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ramavtar S/o Shri Nanagram, R/o Village Shriram Ki Naangal, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 2. Shri Mahavir Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, Through Authorized Signatory Shri Nand Kishore Mittal, S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Mittal, R/o Plot No. 252, Sector 6, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, Indra Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda, Adv. for respondent No.3. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 12/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan-1st, Sanganer (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.410/2020, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. [2025:RJ-JP:30954] (2 of 3) [CR-104/2021] Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent defendant Nos.2 and 3 (for short ‘the defendant Nos.2 and 3) in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 27.07.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that a bare perusal of the plaint reveals that in Khasra No. 825, Rakba 0.36 Hectares, situated at Village Shriram Ki Nangal, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, the plaintiff and his mother had a share of 2/27. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that admittedly, the said land is an agricultural land. Contention of the plaintiff is that other co-shares have sold their land to Defendant No.2-Shri Mahavir Grah Nirman Sahkari Samity Limited. Due to residential activity, he is unable to do the agricultural work. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that without converting the agricultural land, the present suit is not maintainable before the civil court. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as defendant No.3 have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the disputed land is a residential land and the plaintiff had sought only injunction regarding use and occupation. So, the trial court vide order dated 27.07.2021 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 [2025:RJ-JP:30954] (3 of 3) [CR-104/2021] Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant, learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant No.3. It is an admitted position that disputed land is an agricultural land and said land was not converted. Regarding agricultural land, injunction suit lies only before the Revenue Court. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit and dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/50