1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC has been rejected.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondent No.1 Mangi Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration in relation to a bore-well, water pump and electricity connection claiming ⅛th share in the said well, motor and electricity connection situated at Araji No.2968. It was inter-alia claimed in the plaint that the land in question originally belonged to Ram Narayan, Satya Narayan and their brothers Surya Prakash and Om Prakash. Out of the said land, Om Prakash sold the land to Smt.Hangami Devi and Surya Prakash sold ⅛th portion to the plaintiff and ⅛th portion to the defendant No.6 Bhanwar Lal. The bore-well etc. are situated in land belonging to Smt. Hangami Devi and an agreement dated 2.7.2009 was executed by said Smt. Hangami Devi in favour of Ram Narayan, Satya Narayan, Om Prakash and Surya Prakash, it was indicated that the said bore-well etc. were joint property of all the four and that as she has purchased rights of Om Prakash, all other three persons shall continue to have the right qua the said bore-well etc. The ⅛th portion was purchased by the plaintiff on 3.12.2010. It was, inter-alia, alleged in the plaint that as the respondents are seeking to interfere in the enjoyment of the said bore-well etc., it has become necessary to seek inclusion of his name in the electricity connection with the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and for that purpose, the suit was filed.

3. On filing of the suit, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC, inter-alia, claiming that in view of the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act'). The said suit was barred by law and as such, the same deserves rejection.

4. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and it was, inter-alia, submitted that besides other rights, the plaintiff has easementary right qua the said bore-well etc.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that where the suit is wholly and solely based on easementary rights, only the civil court has jurisdiction to hear the suit and consequently rejected the application.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare look at the provisions of Section 5(19) of the Act - "improvement" and Section 5(24) of the Act - "land" as denied by the Tenancy Act, it is apparent that the Well is included in the definition of improvement and land and, therefore, the suit in relation thereto was maintainable before the revenue court only.

7. Reference was also made to Sr. 5, 8 & 8-A of the schedule appended to the Act, which provides for suit, application and appeal under the Act. It was further submitted that nowhere in the plaint, there is any whisper about easementary right and consequently, the judgment impugned deserves to be set-aside and the application deserves to be accepted.

8. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Ramchandra v. Lakha & Ors., 1971 WLN (Part -I) 97 , Ashok Chouhan v. Smt. Amri Bai & Anr., 2010(2) DNJ (Raj.) 776 , Mohar Singh v. Wazir Chand, 1969 RLW 347 .

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the suit is essentially meant for enforcement of the agreement dated 2.7.2009 executed by Smt. Hangami in favour of Ram Narayan, Satya Narayan, Om Prakash and Surya Prakash and therefore, it is the civil court alone which has the jurisdiction to deal with the said matter and the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. It was further submitted that no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner in case the suit is tried by the civil court and on that count also the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the rival submissions.

11. A bare reading of the plaint as placed on reco