1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.194/2007. Bahadur. VERSUS Dwaraka Prasad & Others. 06.05.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Dr.Ram Kishan Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.Mahesh Gupta ] Mr.Kapil Sharma ]for the respondents. ***** This revision petition has been filed by the defendant challenging the order Annexure-5 dated 13.09.2007 by which the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been dismissed. The contention raised by the defendant in his application, as also before this court, is that as per the averments in the plaint, the same is in respect of the lands bearing Khasra No.1207/0.03 and Khasra No.1208/0.80 which are situated in Basari, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur. On the basis of the above, it was contended that the land being agricultural land, a suit for injunction is maintainable before the revenue court and the present suit before the Civil Court is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It has further been submitted that in respect of the same land, the plaintiffs have filed another suit before the court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputali for partition and injunction which is pending before the said revenue court. 2 It is contended that since the plaintiff himself has chosen the forum for filing the suit for partition and injunction before the revenue court treating the land to be the agricultural land, the plaintiffs could not have filed the present suit before the Civil Court. So far as the contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this court is concerned, the same is based upon the documents which have been filed in this revision petition as also were sought to be filed before the learned trial court by way of plaint of the suit filed before the revenue court, which were filed by the plaintiffs themselves. The learned trial court has in the impugned order held that whether or not the land in dispute is agricultural land (revenue land) for which the revenue court would have the jurisdiction is a the matter to be decided after taking evidence in the matter. Admittedly, so far as the present plaint is concerned, the plaintiff has not made any averment with regard to the filing of the earlier suit by the plaintiffs before the revenue court, therefore, the material on which the defendant-petitioner seeks to rely amounts to evidence which can only be taken during the course of trial. The plaint on its own reading does not disclose that the suit is in any manner barred by law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this court would not interfere with the impugned order dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. by the 3 defendant-petitioner. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trial court is directed to frame the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court and whether the land in dispute is agricultural land or not and decide the same after taking evidence on the same as a preliminary issue in the suit. Subject to the above, the revision petition and the stay application are disposed of. The record be returned to the learned trial court forthwith. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.