HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 118/2021 1. Raghuraj S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 2. Amarpal S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 3. Jagveer S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. ----Petitioners-Defendants Versus 1. Bhim Singh S/o Shri Harbhan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 2. Dilip Singh S/o Shri Harbhan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 3. Kishan Singh S/o Shri Harbhan Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. Respondents-Plaintiffs 4. Premwati Widow Of Pratap Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 5. Sharda D/o Pratap Singh W/o Ranveer, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. At Present R/o Bhosinga Tehsil Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 6. Vimal D/o Pratap Singh W/o Nanak Chand, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Murwara Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur Raj. At Present R/o Bhudagate Opp. Pharmacy College Deeg Dist. Bharatpur ----Proforma Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Sogarwal, Adv. with Mr. Aaditya Joshi, Adv. for Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 17 /04/2025 (2 of 3) [CR-118/2021] The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge No.2, Bharatpur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.06/2017 titled as “Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs. Raghuraj & Ors”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 04.08.2021. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that by way of the suit, the plaintiffs wanted to declare themselves owner of the suit property (Khasra No.633 Min/0.02 situated at Village Murwara, Tehsil Bharatpur which is mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint) whereas, the suit property is revenue land and it is in the name of the defendants on account of revenue record. The present suit is barred under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that for the same land, further proceedings are pending before the SDO as well as Revenue Board, Ajmer. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed and the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the present land is not a revenue land. The plaintiffs are (3 of 3) [CR-118/2021] residing there. The trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants clearly mentioned that the present land is being used as residential land or not, it would be decided after framing issues and taking 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 counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that by way of the present suit, the plaintiffs wanted to declare themselves owner of the revenue land which was mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint. Proceedings in regard thereto are also pending before the SDO, Bharatpur and Revenue Board, Ajmer. It is also admitted position that the disputed land was in the Khatedari of the defendants. So, in my considered opinion, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because disputed land is an agricultural land. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/118