[2025:RJ-JP:32674] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 217/2023 Himanshu Sharma S/o Shri Premprakash Sharma, R/o Choudhary Colony, Agra Road, Dausa. ----Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Naresh S/o Shri Moolya @ Moolchand, R/o Jhalra Ka Bas, Bawdipada, Dausa, District Dausa. ---Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Lalsingh Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Dausa, District Dausa. ----Respondent/Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 21/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Dausa (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.09/2023, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. 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 No.2 in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC to the effect that disputed land is an agricultural land and plaintiff is not a tenant in the disputed land. Plaintiff had sought permanent injunction and as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Civil Court had no jurisdiction [2025:RJ-JP:32674] (2 of 2) [CR-217/2023] to try the matter but the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant vide order dated 01.06.2023. So, the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. No one has put in appearance for the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the disputed land is an agricultural land and it has not been converted so far. The trial Court while deciding the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC wrongly came to the conclusion whether disputed land is an agricultural land or urban land, it would be decided after the evidence of the parties. In my considered opinion, a bare perusal of the plaint reveals that disputed land is an agricultural land. So, as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, suit for injunction lies before the Revenue Court and not before the Civil Court. So, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. The petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 01.06.2023 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, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/88