[2025:RJ-JP:32210] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 221/2023 1. Harpal Singh Choudhary Son Of Shri Karan Singh, R/o Chandra Prabhu Nagar, Behind Of Uco Bank, Makadwali, Ajmer. 2. Surendra Son Of Shri Karan Singh, R/o Chandra Prabhu Nagar, Behind Of Uco Bank, Makadwali, Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus Smt. Meena Tyagi Wife Of Shri Ravish Tyagi, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 147/25, Choudhary Hotel Wali Gali, Ramganj, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Chouhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan, Adv. with Mr. Anil Agarwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 19/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘ the defendants’) against the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Ajmer, District Ajmer in Civil Suit No.519/2021, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but trial court vide order dated 02.09.2023 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that a bare perusal of the plaint reveals that it is an agricultural land [2025:RJ-JP:32210] (2 of 3) [CR-221/2023] and plaintiff had not got converted the same. So, the suit regarding permanent injunction for agricultural land shall lie before the revenue court and not before the civil court. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed but trial court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only averments of the plaint are to be seen not the defence of the defendants. Presently the land is being used for residential purposes. So, provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act are not applicable. So, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that matter would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, present petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that land in dispute is agricultural land. Plaintiff had not submitted any document regarding conversion of disputed land into residential one. So, in my considered opinion, injunction suit pertaining to the agricultural land shall lie before the revenue court and not before the civil court. Trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that matter would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the trial court is set aside [2025:RJ-JP:32210] (3 of 3) [CR-221/2023] and trial court is directed to return the suit to the plaintiff for its presentation before the proper jurisdictional court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /95