[2025:RJ-JP:29523] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 22/2023 Vikas Sharma S/o Kailashchand Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kanota, Nayla Road, Behind Vaishno Devi Dharm Kanta, Panchliyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner-Defendant No. 3 Versus 1. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Chiranjilal, R/o Plot No. 3 And 4, Laxminarayan Mandir Parishar, Laxminarayanpuri, Surajpole Gate, Jaipur. ----Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Kailashchand S/o Shri Birdichand Adopted S/o Manphooli, R/o Village Kanota, Nayla Road, Behind Vaishno Devi Dharm Kanta, Panchliyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Roshan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kailashchand Sharma, R/o Village Kanota, Nayla Road, Behind Vaishno Devi Dharm Kanta, Panchliyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.). 4. Rekha D/o Kailashchand Sharma, R/o Village Kanota, Nayla Road, Behind Vaishno Devi Dharm Kanta, Panchliyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Proforma Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Garvit Khandelwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 3 (for short 'the defendant') under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Bassi, Jaipur Metro-I (for short 'the trial Court') [2025:RJ-JP:29523] (2 of 3) [CR-22/2023] in civil suit No. 21/2022, by the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 mentioning therein that disputed land bearing khasra No. 36 rakba 7 bigha 10 biswa purchased by him and it is a residential colony and sought the injunction against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that defendant filed an application before the trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to the effect that disputed land bearing khasra No. 36 is an agricultural land. So, civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, but the trial Court vide order dated 27.09.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments-: 1. Hastimal & Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi (Mrs.) & Ors. in civil revision petition No. 84/2017 decided on 20.11.2020. 2. Premi Devi (Smt.) Vs. Deva Ram & Ors. in civil revision petition No. 969/2008 decided on 24.09.2008. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that Manfuli Devi developed the residential colony in the name of "Rameshwar Dham" and she had sold the disputed plot to the plaintiff by registered sale deed. It was also mentioned that it is a [2025:RJ-JP:29523] (3 of 3) [CR-22/2023] residential plot. The said plot was sold with the consent of the defendants. So, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that it is an agricultural land or not would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. A perusal of the plaint reveals that land bearing khasra No. 36 is an agricultural land. Jamabandi also depict that disputed land is agricultural land. Mere mentioning of the words in the registered sale deed that it is a residential land, nature of the land can't be converted. Injunction suit for the agricultural land lie before the revenue Courts. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed; order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/50