[2025:RJ-JP:16151] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 262/2022 1. Aman Baid Son Of Shri Mahendra Kumar Baid, Resident Of C-142, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Also At Baid House, First Floor, Tara Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Realstone Buildcon Private Limited, Through Its Director Aman Baid Son Of Shri Mahendra Baid, Office At Baid House, First Floor, Tara Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Resident Of Village Harvanshpura, Jaisinghpura Baas, Muhana Road, Ajmer Road, Bhankrota, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 16 /0 4 /2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II Jaipur in Civil Suit No.375/2022, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that trial court had committed [2025:RJ-JP:16151] (2 of 3) [CR-262/2022] error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that the present land was agricultural land, so civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, the application be allowed and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on account of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgment:- Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. reported in (2019) 3 SCC 692; Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the present suit filed by the plaintiff was not regarding the agricultural land. The said agricultural land was converted by the Jaipur Development Authority into residential land. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that on account of dispute between the parties, the agreement was executed between them on 26.01.2022. The defendants had not complied with the terms of the said agreement, so plaintiff wanted to get complied with the said agreement. Without complying the said agreement, defendants had no right to construct or alienate the disputed land, so trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants 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 plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:16151] (3 of 3) [CR-262/2022] It is an admitted position that the present suit is not related to agricultural land. The said land was converted by Jaipur Development Authority. So, it is a residential land. The plaintiff filed a suit for compliance of the agreement dated 26.01.2022, by which the defendants were required to pay Rs.2,50,00,000/- within four months. As per the contention of the plaintiff, the said amount was not paid by the defendants and they were executing the other terms of the said agreement. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. It is also pertinent to mention that on valuation of Rs.400/-, plaintiff had filed present suit for realization of the amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- as per the so-called agreement. So, trial court is directed to consider as to whether it had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit or not and proceed in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /134