Prakash Tatia, J.—The trial Court vide order dt. 09.08.2007 allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that the suit is not triable by the civil Court and was triable by the revenue Court only and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff though pleaded in his plaint itself that the land in question is agricultural land but the defendants encroached upon the plaintiff’s agricultural land which is plaintiff’s khatedari land and constructed houses and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in nearby area, houses have been constructed by several persons. In view of the above reason, the land though recorded as agricultural land in revenue record and admitted by the plaintiff to be agricultural land but in fact is surrounded by the Abadi area and the land has been put to Abadi use, therefore, the civil Court can entertain the suit and can pass the decree of eviction of the trespasser. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document