ORDER :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful defendant against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thanagazi (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.34/10/2023 whereby, an application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed a suit against the defendant with the averments that a residential Bada as described in Para 1 of the plaint situated in village Guwara Bandipul, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar was under his ownership and possession since the time of his ancestors in which he has raised construction of a residential house. It was alleged that the defendant wants to dispossess him forcibly and interfere with in his use and occupation of the suit premises. Therefore, a decree of permanent injunction was prayed for. The defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the plaintiff has not specified the Khasra number in which the disputed residential Bada was situated and he has filed the suit wrongly reckoning the agricultural land as residential. Rejection of the plaint was sought as Section 207 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") bars jurisdiction of Civil Court with regard to agricultural land. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.02.2023, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the plaint and the site plan appended therewith, submitted that the plaintiff has deliberately not disclosed the Khasra number in which the subject property is situated which, from the meaningful reading of the plaint, appears to be agricultural land. He submits that from the Commissioner report dated 01.02.2023 and copies of the Jamabandi placed on record alongwith the memo of the revision petition, it is apparent that the nature of subject land is agricultural. Referring to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr.: (1977) 4 SCC 467, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was imperative for the learned trial Court to have subjected the plaintiff to examination under order 10 CPC to unearth the true nature of the subject land. He, therefore, prayed that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 06.02.2023 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC be allowed. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgments:-

1. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 366.

2. Karan Singh and Ors. v. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.54/2015 decided on 09.05.2018.

3. Heard. Considered.

4. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant on the premise that the plaint did not disclose the subject land to be agricultural in nature. This Court has gone through the contents of the plaint and the site plan appended therewith and does not find that the same to be reflecting the nature of subject land to be agricultural; rather, it is specifically mentioned in the plaint that it is a residential Bada which is being used by the plaintiff for the purpose of his residence. Under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC, a plaint can be rejected if it appears from the statements made therein to be barred by any law. Of course,