JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners seek to quash the order dated August 20, 1998 of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Shahpura whereby issue No. 4 was decided against the petitioner. 2. Issue No. 4 was in respect of jurisdiction of the civil court. Contention of the petitioners before the court below was that the dispute pertains to the agricultural land therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit and decide it. The learned court below decided the said issue against the petitioners on the ground that the relief was sought in respect of installation of Transformer, which relates to the civil rights of the party, therefore, this court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. I have heard, Mr. Gopi Chand Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and carefully scanned the impugned order. 4. I am not impressed with the submissions advanced before me that in view of the provisions contained in Rajasthan Tenancy Act, this court had no is jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In my considered opinion the matter comes within the purview of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent relates to installation of Transformer on agricultural lend. it cannot be said that the relief sought by the plaintiff is at all connected with the use of agricultural land so as to attract the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order and if the order is allowed to it would not occasion failure of justice. 5. The revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.Revision dismissed. *******