SBCWP No.641/2008 Raju Ram Vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.641/2008 Raju Ram Vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 7.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.CP Soni, for the petitioner. Mr. RS Choudhary, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the grant of injunction order, which has been granted in the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the suit has been filed with respect to agricultural land and relief of injunction can be granted only by the revenue court under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is also submitted that when the court has no jurisdiction, the court cannot grant injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Anant Shri Sukhramji Trust & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in AIR 1997 (Raj.) 32 I considered the submissions of learned counsel for SBCWP No.641/2008 Raju Ram Vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. 2 the petitioner and perused the facts of the case as well as the copy of the plaint placed on record by the petitioner. It is true that the court having no jurisdiction cannot grant injunction, but in this case, it appears from the facts mentioned in para no.9 of the trial court's order that an application for rejection of the plaint was submitted by the defendant, which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 18th Oct., 2005 and an issue no.3 has been framed with respect to the jurisdiction of the trial court. In that situation, it cannot be said that from the plaint it appears or from the plea taken by the defendant it can be safely held that the civil court had no jurisdiction. Issue is required to be decided after the summary rejection of the defendant- petitioner's application for rejection of the plaint. In view of the above the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Anant Shri Sukhramji Trust (surpa) has no application as in said case it has been found that suit was defective and was not maintainable on merits. In view of the above reason, I do not find any just reason to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the order passed by the SBCWP No.641/2008 Raju Ram Vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. 3 trial court for grant of injunction and appellate court's order upholding the same. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-