[2025:RJ-JP:25931] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 172/2022 1. Charan Singh S/o Kesariya, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 2. Madan Singh S/o Moola, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 3. Ramji Lal S/o Moola, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 4. Guddi W/o Nawab, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. ----Petitioners-Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 Versus 1. Bablu S/o Hakim Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 2. Guddu S/o Hakim Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 3. Ramesh S/o Gangadhar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. ----Respondents-Plaintiffs 4. Mukesh S/o Moola, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Naugaya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. ----Proforma Respondent/Defendant No. 5 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J K Moolchandani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N C Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 14 /07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Bharatpur in civil suit No. 170/2022 titled as "Bablu & Ors. Vs. Charan Singh & [2025:RJ-JP:25931] (2 of 3) [CR-172/2022] Ors.", whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC praying therein that the plaintiffs wanted to create a way on the land which was in possession of the defendants. The land in question is an agricultural land and only the revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the matter under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that similar case is also pending before the SDM Court. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable but the trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed being barred by jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the trial Court while deciding the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC had to see only the averments of the plaint. Defence of the defendants cannot be considered at this stage. The disputed land is agricultural or residential, would be decided only after taking evidence of the parties. So, the trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 rightly dismissed the application filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:25931] (3 of 3) [CR-172/2022] defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Rajendra Meena Vs. Harendra Kumar Meena & Anr. in civil revision petition No. 173/2015 decided on 07.10.2016; 2. Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. Sahab Ram in civil writ petition No. 705/2016 decided on 05.03.2018 and; 3. Bal Kishan & Anr. Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. in civil revision petition No. 196/2012 decided on 07.01.2014. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 while dismissing the application filed by defendants clearly mentioned that the disputed land is an agricultural land or not, would only be decided after taking evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/110