Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. the petitioner-plaintiff is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bhinmal in Civil Original Suit No. 17/2007 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit while allowing application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.PC. b defendant-respondent Phoola Ram. 2. As per facts of the case, a suit under Section 6, Specific Relief Act was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in which an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was filed by the respondent-defendant and the trial Court allowed the said application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner while giving the finding that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit because the land in question is agriculture land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of deciding the suit the facts and averments and grounds mentioned in the plaint can be seen and no other material can be taken into account for the purpose of deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. and, upon perusal of the suit filed by the petitioner, it will reveal that specific plea was taken by the petitioner that he is holding patta of urban (abadi) land and said patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat Jaswantpura in favour of one Bhaka S/o Malji Lohar which was purchased by the plaintiff from Bhaka through registered sale-deed dated 5.3.1987 and permission was also granted for construction by the Gram Panchayat; meaning thereby, the finding given by the trial Court while deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. is based upon borrowed notion, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff further argued that in the order impugned the trial Court adjudicated the matter without evidence and gave finding that land is agriculture land which is totally illegal and erroneous because in the pleadings of the suit it does not emerge that there is any pleading that the land in question is agriculture land, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant submits that in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC it was specifically brought to the notice of the Court that the land in question is agriculture land, therefore, the civil Court is not having any jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to agriculture land and as such the trial Court has rightly rejected the suit while holding that there is no jurisdiction left with the Court. As per learned counsel for the respondent, the order is well worded order in which no interference is required. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned, so also, provisions contained in Rule 11 of Order 7 of Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Upon perusal of the above provision and order impugned, it emerges that there was no occasion left with the trial Court to give finding with regard to type of the land whether the defendant took any plea in the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC that land in question is agriculture land but, in the plaint, there is no such assertion that the land in question is agriculture land, therefore, obviously the matter was to be decided after framing issues and recording evidence but the trial Court decided the application of the defendant filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as if the Court was deciding the suit finally, that too, without recording any evidence. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned dated 7.5.2008 is not sustainable in law. 9. Hence, this revision petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 7.5.2008 passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.