JUDGMENT :

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bundi (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.17/2022 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.3 (for brevity, “the defendant no.3”) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent no.1/plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents no.2 & 3/defendants no.1 & 2 and the defendant no.3 stating therein that he has purchased the subject property comprising of a plot measuring 100 feet x 150 feet from the defendant no.1 through an agreement to sell dated 09.01.2022 and received its possession. It was alleged that instead of executing its sale deed in his favour, the defendant no.1 has sold the subject property to the defendant no.3 on asking of the defendant no.2. Alleging that now the defendants were trying to raise construction on the subject plot, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. Therein, the defendant no.3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising objection as to its maintainability in view of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, “the Act of 1955”). The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.04.2022, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order dated 13.04.2022, learned counsel for the defendant no.3, inviting attention of this Court towards the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2022, a part of the plaint, would submit that therein, it is specifically stated that the subject land is agricultural land as it was not mutated in the revenue record. He submits that since the suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction has been filed in respect of an agricultural land, in view of provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955, it is the Revenue Court only which has jurisdiction to try it. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 13.04.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, relies upon following judgements:-

(1) Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur & Ors.: 2018(3) RLW 1988 (Raj.)

(2) Hastimal & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Pushpa & Ors.: 2021(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 297

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that since the land is being used for ‘abadi’, even if it is recorded in the revenue record as ‘agricultural’, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try it. Inviting attention of this Court towards the definition of ‘land’ under Section 5 (24) of the Act of 1955, he submits that to oust jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, it should be used for agricultural purposes or purpose subservient thereto. He submits that since, admittedly, the subject land is not being used for agricultural purposes, the learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by the defendant no.3. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgements:-

(1) Gopal Vs. Durga Prasad: 1974 RLW 151

(2) Srimohan @ Mohan Lal Joshi Vs. Sitaram Joshi & Ors.: 1997 (3) WLC 28

(3) Kamlesh Vs. Liquidator, Bhopal Cooperative Society Lts. & Ors.: 2013 (2) RLW 1019

5. Heard. Considered.

6. While dismissing the application filed by the defendant no.3, the learned trial Court has held that since, from the averments in the plaint, use of the subject land is reflected as ‘residential’, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. Although, the plaint does not reveal the nature of the subject land; but, the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2022, a part of the plaint, reflects the subject land to be ‘agricultural’ in nature. Even otherwise also, the subject land is ‘agricultural’ in nature, is not disputed by learned Senio