[2025:RJ-JP:20543] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 46/2019 Mahaveer Suman S/o Shri Chanda Lal Suman, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rajnagar Kota (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt Sudarshan Kanwar W/o Shri Chandraveer Singh Hada, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No. 9 Vallabh Badi Kota (Raj) At Present R/o House No. 16 Puri Enclave New Akashwani Colony Kota (Raj) 2. Ramswaroop Kumawat S/o Shri Chaturbhuj Kumawat, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Jhalipura Kota (Raj) 3. Manoj Kumawat S/o Shri Ramswaroop Kumawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Jhalipura Kota (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri, Adv. with Ms. Bismat Kaur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 16 /05/2025 Instant civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by Civil Judge (South), Kota (for short 'the trial Court') in case No. 252/2018 titled as "Sudarshan Kanwar Vs. Mahaveer Suman and Ors.", whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for [2025:RJ-JP:20543] (2 of 3) [CR-46/2019] permanent injunction with regard to agricultural land in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court stating therein that civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because land in dispute is agricultural land and injunction suit shall lie before the revenue Court but the trial Court vide order dated 23.01.2019 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant observing that the objection raised by the defendant is a mixed question of law and fact and the same would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant because disputed land is agricultural land. So, the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent(s). I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that plaintiff by way of suit sought injunction with regard to agricultural land. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. It is also an admitted position that suit with regard to agricultural land lies before the revenue Court. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before proper jurisdictional Court. [2025:RJ-JP:20543] (3 of 3) [CR-46/2019] Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir108