[2025:RJ-JP:461] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 375/2024 Ramsahai Mali S/o Bhauraya Mali, aged about 76 years, R/o Maliyo Ka Pura, Bye-Pass, Audyogik Kshetra, Saloda Ke Pass, Gangapur City. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Gaurav Goyal S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Goyal, aged about 33 years, R/o Sindhi Colony, Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). 2. Kamlesh Mali S/o Ramsahai Mali, aged about 50 years 3. Mukesh Mali S/o Ramsahai Mali, Aged About 48 Years, 4. Peetam Mali S/o Ramsahai Mali, aged about 43 years, 2 To 4 Are R/o Maliyo Ka Pura, Bye-Pass, Audyogik Kshetra, Saloda Ke Pass, Gangapur City. 5. Shakir Alias Bhutto S/o Abdul Saeed, aged about 54 years, R/o Village Badi Udei, Tehsil Gangapur City. 6. Shyamsingh S/o Ramswaroop, aged about 48 years, R/o Sainik Nagar, Gangapur City. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order 03/01/2025 1. Instant civil revision petition is preferred by petitioner- defendant no.1 aggrieved from order dated 01.10.2024 of dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Rule 10 CPC in Civil Suit No.103/2021 by learned Civil Judge, Gangapur City. [2025:RJ-JP:461] (2 of 3) [CR-375/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant no.1 submits that the plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction with respect to a property, which is an agricultural land and filing of suit of such land before Civil Court is barred by law. He further submits that the suit property is part of agricultural land khasra nos.6130 and 6138 and in revenue record said land has been shown as agricultural land. He referred the provision of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and submitted that the suit for injunction is not maintainable before the Civil Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 4. Respondent-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction for the property mentioned in para no.1 purchased in terms of description as mentioned in para no.2. The plaintiff has mentioned that the suit property is a residential plot and same is adjacent to industrial area, Saloda and situated at Gangapur City. Nowhere, in the plaint, the plaintiffs has mentioned that the suit property is an agricultural land and part of khasra nos.6130 and 6138. 5. At the stage of disposal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a meaningful reading of plaint is required. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is an independent and special remedy, empowering Courts to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold without proceeding to record evidence and conduct trial on the basis of evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any ground content in this provision. 6. A very recently Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the several judgments on the subject in case of Dahiben Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:461] (3 of 3) [CR-375/2024] Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 wherein referred the principle of law discussed in case of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 (Supp.) SCC 315 and held that if a meaningful reading on the plaint, it is found that the suit is barred by any law then same has to be dismissed at that very stage. 7. Herein, after considering the copy of plaint, available on record, I am of considered view that the plaintiff has claimed injunction with respect to a residential plot having specific measurement and there is no description of any revenue record. As per defendant, aforesaid land is part of agricultural land but plaintiff has denied the same in reply to application. 8. Having considered aforesaid, a suit cannot be thrown out of the court on defence as raised by the petitioner-defendant, therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed by the trial court and there is no perversity or illegality in the order, hence, the revision petition sans merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of aforesaid, the civil revision petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Arun/54