JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - The civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants (for brevity, "the defendants") against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan I (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") whereby, while allowing the civil regular appeal No.2/2022 (53/2022), the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (East) Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for brevity, "the learned trial court") rejecting the plaint filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, has been reversed.

2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction qua the subject property as described in para No.1 of the plaint claiming himself to be son of its erstwhile Khatedar Shri Bhairu Ram and alleging that the defendant No.1 claiming himself fraudulently to be adopted son of late Bhairu Ram got its mutation entered in his name. An application filed therein by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was allowed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 30.08.2022 on the premise that without getting declaration of his Khatedari rights in the subject property from the competent revenue court, the civil suit was not maintainable. The order has been reversed by the learned appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.02.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the defendants would submit that in view of the nature of the land being agricultural, without seeking a declaration as to his khatedari rights, civil suit was not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2023 be quashed and set aside and the order dated 30.08.2022 be restored.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. Undisputedly, the land stood converted in the Abadi land prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff. Since, the subject land ceased to be the agricultural land prior to the institution of the suit, the plaint could not have been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in view of the provisions of Section 207 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned appellate court did not err in allowing the civil first appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

6. Since the second appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, the same is dismissed.