[2025:RJ-JP:29789] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 181/2022 1. Tilakraj S/o Shri Chijandas, Aged About 53 Years, Occupation Shopkeeper R/o Plot No. 46, Maharana Pratap Colony, Tehsil And District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 2. Nawal Sharma S/o Shri Gajanand Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Near Hatai, Jatwada Khurd, Tehsil And District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1 and 2 Versus 1. Prahlad Mali S/o Shri Kanaram Mali, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Jatwada Khurd, Tehsil And District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) ….Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 05/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Sawaimadhopur (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.90/2022, titled as “Parhlad Mali Vs. Tilakraj & 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 plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants as well as proforma respondent-defendant No.3 (for short ‘the defendant [2025:RJ-JP:29789] (2 of 2) [CR-181/2022] No.3) in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable before the civil court. As per the contention of the plaint, house of the plaintiff was constructed on Khasra No.606. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the said land is an agricultural land and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit but the trial court vide order dated 05.08.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Despite service of notice, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order dated 05.08.2022. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed a suit regarding agricultural land. In my considered opinion, suit regarding agricultural land is not maintainable before the civil court. The trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit and dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 05.08.2022 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/56