CR-51/2008-Smt. Vandana Devi & Anr.Vs. Ramesh Chand Gurjar & Anr : Order dt.16.7.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.51/2008 Smt. Vandana Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Gurjar & Anr. Date of order : 16th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Narender Singh for Mr. Sajjan Singh for the petitioner. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned trial court dated 30.11.2007 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 wherein he had asked for return of plaint as the suit according to him was not maintainable in civil Court, the land in question being agricultural land as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sections 88, 92 A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and also judgment of this Court in M/s Sethi Constructions Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan – 207 WLC (Raj.) UC 403. 4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the impugned order. 5. The learned trial court has observed in para 5 of the judgment that the defendant had not disputed that land in question fell within the jurisdiction of UIT, Udaipur and for the same purpose also the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. which was rejected by the learned trial Court on 9.5.2007 and that order became final as the same was not challenged any further by the CR-51/2008-Smt. Vandana Devi & Anr.Vs. Ramesh Chand Gurjar & Anr : Order dt.16.7.08 2/2 defendant. 6. The contention of the defendant that the land in question was agricultural land and, therefore, only a suit in revenue Court was maintainable under Section 92-A even for injunction is not tenable in view of the fact that the land in question admittedly falls within the jurisdiction of UIT, Udaipur and the dispute pertains to a road over the land in question for which the parties are in lis in civil Court. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 10 and there is no force in the writ petition. 8. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner turns on different facts as the land in question was admittedly an agricultural land and the dispute pertained to revenue entries in the said matter. Thus, the said case is distinguishable from the present case. 9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.1 babulal/-