[2025:RJ-JP:33246] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 40/2023 1. Dhruvdatta S/o D.k. Datta, R/o D-355, D-356 First Floor Siddharth Nagar, Behind North Western Railway Jaipur. 2. Rinkal Sharma W/o Shri Nand Kishore, R/o A 721, 7Th Floor, Omega Village, Muhana, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus Ramjilal S/o Late Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Ganwar Brahamanan, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt-Jaipur. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. C. Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 22/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.1051/2022, 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 permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application because the disputed property is an agricultural land and suit for [2025:RJ-JP:33246] (2 of 2) [CR-40/2023] permanent injunction shall lie before the Revenue Court. As per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the matter. So, petition filed by the defendants be allowed, the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that plaintiff had filed the suit against the patta issued by Vatika Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. for the disputed land. Disputed land is agricultural land or residential land, is not to be decided in the suit. So, the petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the agricultural land. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants because suit regarding permanent injunction of the agricultural land shall lie before the Revenue Court and not before the Civil Court. So, the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. The petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/51