JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been Filed against the order of the learned Munsif, Sujangarh dated July 25,1989 by which he has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner moved under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and allowed the application of the plaintiff, non-petitioner moved under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No.1 Kanhaiyalal has filed a suit for specific performance with the allegation, in short, that certain agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 60 situated in the village Tharda (Sujangarh) belong to the defendant-non-petitioner No. 3 Dungar Singh with his brother Bhanwar Singh, Dungar Singh has executed an agreement for sale in respect of 9 bighas 15 biswas in his favour, he delivered its possession the same day, in the subsequent settlement this land was included in the Khasra No. 176 comprising of 21 bigha 3 biswas and the defendant Dungar Singh has sold the entire Khasra through a registered sale-deed to the defendant No. 2 and petitioner. 3. An application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. was moved by the defendant-petitioner on the grounds that the suit is lime barred and is not maintainable in the Civil Court. Thereafter, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. was moved by the plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal for the amendment of the plaint to include the relief of possession with the allegations, in short, that he has been dispossessed from his land after the institution of the suit by the defendant-Rajendra Singh. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the defendant-petitioner's application and allowed the plaintiff-non-petitioner's application by its order under revision. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. He contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it is exclusively triable by Revenue Court as provided under Section 207, Rajasthan Tenancy Act. There is no force in this contention. Admittedly, the suit has been filed for the specific performance of an agreement. There is no entry in III schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for such a suit. There is no force in this contention. Admittedly, the suit has been filed for the specific performance of an agreement. There is no entry in III schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for such a suit. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit falls in the residue Entry No. 35 of the Schedule III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This entry clearly provides for any other suit in respect of any matter arising under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Specific performance of an agreement does not arise under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It arises under the Specific Relief Act. It has been held in Durga Dan v. Devi Dan, 1974 Rajasthan RLW 296 , that a suit for specific performance of an agreement relating to an agricultural land is exclusively triable by a Civil Court and not by a Revenue Court. 5. It does not appear from the order under revision that it has been stated in the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. that from the statement made in the plaint the suit appears to be barred by limitation as required under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Article 54, Limitation Act deals with the limitation for such suits. According to it, time begins to run from the date fixed for the performance or, if no such date is fixed from the date the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. It is not the petitioner's case that any date for agreement for sale was fixed for the performance. As such it is a matter of evidence when the plaintiff has the notice of the refusal of the performance. 6. It was not contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned Trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner moved under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. It has been averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that the possession was duly given to him by the defendant after the execution of the agreement for sale. In the application moved under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C:, the plaintiff has alleged that he has been dispossessed by the defendant-petitioner after the institution of the suit Admittedly, written statement has not so far been filed by any defendant Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application for the amendment of the plaint In a suit for specific performance, relief of delivery of possession is also generally sought By such a relief, the nature of the suit is not changed. Thus there is no force in the revision petition. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******