1 19 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.228/2007. Chandra Prakash Vs. Madhu Das & Ors. Date of Order :: 26th February 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.K. Bhaiya ] Mr. D.R. Kawadia ] for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 07.08.2007 so as to call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the subject matter of the suit being an agricultural land, civil court has no jurisdiction to try the same has been disallowed by the learned trial court with the observation that it cannot be said outright that the land in question is an agricultural land and that the suit does not appear to be barred by any law. The learned trial court has however, left the issue of jurisdiction open with the observations that the related questions could only be decided after framing of issues on the pleadings of the parties and taking evidence led by them. An examination of the plaint averments makes out that the plaintiffs have suggested that their predecessor framed a residential scheme on his land located at Survey No.320/1 and they 2 purchased 6910.6 square feet of land through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1990 for residential purposes. The plaintiffs have also alleged in the plaint that the disputed land is situated in thickly populated Ward No. 20 of Balotra township and several other plots are situated in the vicinity and a residential colony of about 100-150 houses has also developed and the land had never been put to agricultural use for 30 years and maximum of the surrounding land already stand vested in the Municipal Board, Balotra under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The plaintiffs have alleged unauthorised interference by the defendants on the land in question and have sought injunction in that regard. Perusal of the record also makes out that the application for temporary injunction as filed by the plaintiffs was decided by the learned trial court on 20.08.2007 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the land in question with reference to the Commissioner's Report and on the basis of consent of counsel for both the parties. It has been strenuously argued by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.K.Bhaiya that the land in question is an agricultural land and continues to retain such a character as is apparent from the recitals in the sale deed relied upon and filed by the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit for injunction is not maintainable before the civil court. Learned counsel suggested that the plaintiff having taken averments in the plaint directly with reference to the alleged sale deed, the contents thereof could be read as a part of pleadings 3 for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The submissions remain unsustainable. The document of sale, even if filed in conformity with the plaint averments, nevertheless remains a piece of evidence and cannot be read as a part of pleadings. This apart, nothing substantial turns upon the submissions made in relation to the character of the land in question at this stage. In view of the other plaint averments as noticed supra, it cannot be said outright that the suit is ''barred by law'' so as to invite the operation of Rule 11 (d) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The questions as posed by the petitioner give rise essentially to an issue of jurisdiction to be determined in accordance with law but are not sufficient to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in not rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and in leaving the question of jurisdiction open at this stage; to be determined after framing of issues in the suit. Learned counsel has also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Narendra & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer (Deceased) through LRs : 2007 WLC (Raj.) UC 399 in support of his contentions. A bare look at the said decision is sufficient to find that therein, the question of jurisdiction was considered by the learned trial court only after framing of the issues and then deciding the relevant issue No.5 at the first. The said decision, therefore, does not lend any 4 support to the contentions against the impugned order in the present case where the petitioner-defendant sought determination of the question of jurisdiction by way of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and where the learned trial court has not found the objection sufficient for rejection of the plaint. The revision petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. Record be returned immediately. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/