JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner-defendant has filed this revision petition under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') to challenge the order impugned dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby learned Court below has dismissed his application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in a suit for declaration of testamentary instrument null and void. Besides that respondent - plaintiffs have also claimed the relief that their share in the agricultural land, which is part of the alleged Will, be also entered in their names in the revenue record. Precisely, the suit is based on the fact that the Will, allegedly executed by Suleman in favour of petitioner, is a forged and spurious document. Alleging serious manipulation and manoeuvring on the part of petitioner - defendant, respondent - plaintiffs have pleaded that the Will was got registered by the petitioner in his favour while depriving them of their respective share in the property. 2. Learned Court below, after hearing the rival submissions, examined the matter threadbare and while laying stress on the main relief, i.e. cancellation of the Will, allegedly executed by the testator, has declined the prayer of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint on the strength of the consequential reliefs for entering their names in the revenue records for their respective share in the agricultural land. 3. Mr. Rajesh Prajapat, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit, as such is barred by law. According to learned counsel, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act envisaged that a suit, which is cognisable by a Revenue Court is barred in any other Court including the Civil Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 232/2011 (Shiv Narain & Ors. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors.), decided on 27th March, 2014. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment, on which the learned counsel has placed reliance. In my opinion, looking to the nature of the document, which is under challenge before the learned Court below, and the main prayer made in the suit, it is not possible to infer that the suit is barred by law. 5. In my opinion, looking to the nature of the document, which is under challenge before the learned Court below, and the main prayer made in the suit, it is not possible to infer that the suit is barred by law. 5. It is trite that jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 is of very wide amplitude and ouster of its jurisdiction has to be either express or by necessary implication. In view of serious allegations in the plaint about fraud practised by the petitioner and the fact that testamentary instrument has been categorized as a spurious document there cannot be two opinions that such a dispute can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court under Section 9 CPC. The judgment, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, relates to a suit wherein a declaration is sought that the incumbent may be declared as Khatedar tenant of the agricultural land, therefore, the said judgment is factually distinguishable. Moreover, the contentious issues raised in the suit, more particularly, the allegations of manipulation and manoeuvring by the petitioner, for getting a spurious testamentary instrument registered, are required to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and such matters d do not fall within the purview/jurisdiction of Revenue Courts by virtue of Section 207 in conjunction with Schedule III to the Tenancy Act. 6. Learned Court below, in my opinion, while passing the impugned order has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction and the impugned order has also not occasioned failure of justice. 7. Resultantly, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.