JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Case No. 25/2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Suit No. 25/2013 which was instituted by the respondents cannot be continued as the same is barred by res judicata and also as a suit pertaining to permanent injunction in relation to agricultural land cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the suit was not maintainable as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which postulates that such a suit can only be brought before the Revenue Court. He thus urged that the impugned order being grossly perverse deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that a dispute of partition based on an adoption deed can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court. It is further submitted that apart from agricultural land, the property in Chak-9HH is urban land and some fire arms are also subject of the lis before the Civil Court. Thus, as per Section 9 of the C.P.C. Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is also submitted that permanent injunction in relation to the suit property can only be issued by the Civil Court. Thus, he submits that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. The learned Trial Court whilst dealing with the application filed by the petitioner considered the fact that the Us before Civil Court was not only in relation to the agricultural land but also included in its purview the house property situated in Chak-9HH as well as the certain moveable properties. Considering these facts the learned Trial Court held that looking to the pleading of the plaint and the subject matter, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Considering these facts the learned Trial Court held that looking to the pleading of the plaint and the subject matter, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It is also noticed that the petitioners did not file on record the copies of the proceedings allegedly pending before the Revenue Court along with the application, and therefore, it was not possible to adjudicate as to whether the matters pending before both the Courts related to the same dispute. Accordingly, by a well reasoned order dated 7.2.2013, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. The reasonings given by the learned Trial Court in the opinion of this Court are just and appropriate. The order cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to call for any interference in the exercise of this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition being without merit is dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******