[2025:RJ-JP:17839] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 244/2022 Maman Singh S/o Late Sohan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana(Alwar), Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rohitash Singh S/o Late Jamman Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan). 2. Ved Prakash S/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pinky Devi W/o Late Rajendra Singh Rajput.r/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan). 3. Shyam Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 12 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pinky Devi W/o Late Rajendra Singh Rajput.r/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan). 4. Anjali D/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pinky Devi W/o Late Rajendra Singh Rajput.r/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan). 5. Pinky Devi W/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan). 6. Rajbai Devi W/o Late Jamman Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan). 7. Santosh D/o Late Jamman Singh, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana(Alwar), Rajasthan. 8. Suman D/o Late Jamman Singh, R/o Village Kokila Rabad, Tehsil Neemrana(Alwar), Rajasthan. 9. Sub Divisional Officer, Neemrana (Alwar), Rajasthan. 10. Tehsildar, Neemrana (Alwar) Rajasthan. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:17839] (2 of 4) [CR-244/2022] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 29/04/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Neemrana, Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.34/79/2022, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 10 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos.1 to 6-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent injunction and compensation against the defendants in which defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 10 CPC but trial court vide order dated 19.10.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that defendant filed an application under Section 251(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Neemrana, Alwar in the case of Maman Singh Vs. Pinky Devi and Others, in which service was effected on plaintiff No.1. After the service of the summons, the plaintiff No.1 filed the present suit. The subject matter of the present suit as well as revenue suit is the same. So, the proceedings of the said suit was stayed. [2025:RJ-JP:17839] (3 of 4) [CR-244/2022] Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that present suit is related to agricultural land, so only revenue court had jurisdiction to adjudicate it. So, order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Karan Singh Chouhan and Others Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur and Others in Civil Revision Petition No.54 of 2015 decided on 09.05.2018. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that present suit is not related to agricultural land. Allegations against the defendant is that defendant had encroached on the way, so trial court had jurisdiction to try it. So, trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 10 CPC. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs is regarding way near Khasra No.219. As per contention of the plaintiffs, defendant wanted to encroach on it. So, plaintiffs sought permanent as well as mandatory injunction. So, in my considered opinion, suit filed by the plaintiffs is regarding way, which is in the agricultural land. So, trial court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, present petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:17839] (4 of 4) [CR-244/2022] The revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the trial court is set aside and trial court is directed to return the suit filed by the plaintiffs for its presentation before the court having proper jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /98