The court deferred the decision on the jurisdiction issue as it required evidence from the parties, and dismissed the petition on the grounds that the trial court's decision did not lack exercise of jurisdiction.

1. - Heard.

2. In a suit for injunction, filed by the respondents, the learned trial Court, inter alia, framed issues relating to Court fee and jurisdiction of the Court. The issue relating to insufficiency of Court fee was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Though the finding of the learned trial Court on that issue has also been challenged through the present petition, yet the learned counsel was fair enough not to challenge that part of the order of the learned trial Court before me.

3. The issue relating to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear the present suit was not decided by the learned trial Court on the ground that the same necessitate evidence from the parties as the said issue was an issue of fact. The controversy between the parties was as to whether the immovable property, was situated in `aabadi' or was agricultural land. After perusing the material, placed before her, the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Sikar, pointed out that the land whereupon the suit premises was constructed was located in Khasra No. 386 which was recorded as ger-mumkin-kuan in the revenue record and vested in the State of Rajasthan. Looking to the pleas raised by the defendant- petitioners the learned trial Court thought it proper to defer the decision on that issue for the time being and to decide the same after recording the evidence of the parties alongwith other issues. Since in the opinion of the trial Court the issue relating to jurisdiction was an issue of fact, the decision of which necessitated evidence from the parties, the impugned order does not suffer from any vice or lack of exercise of jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed.

*******