JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 13.3.2015, whereby the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') after holding that it has jurisdiction to try the case, decided the issue No. 10 framed in Civil Suit No. 61/2008 against the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioners claiming that the petitioners have agreed to sell an agricultural land to them but later on refused to execute the sell-deed in their favour, therefore, a decree of specific performance be issued against the petitioner defendants. The said suit for specific performance was initially filed before the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar while claiming that the land which was agreed to be sold by the petitioner-defendants is situated in Tehsil Padampur, which falls within the jurisdiction of Court at Sri Karanpur. However, later on, the respondent-plaintiffs filed an application before the Court of Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar and claimed that the agriculture land, which was agreed to be sold by the petitioner-defendants is situated in Tehsil Raisinghnagar and, therefore, the suit filed by them for specific performance be returned for presenting it before the competent Court. The Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar has returned the suit to the respondent-plaintiffs for presenting it before the competent Court. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiffs filed the present suit before the Trial Court which has framed issue No. 10 regarding the jurisdiction. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner-defendants have proved before the Trial Court that no agriculture land exist in the name of petitioners in Chak No. 3-RPM which falls within Tehsil Raisinghnagar and, therefore, there is no question of execution of any agreement by them for selling the said land. It is also submitted that the petitioner-defendants have produced the Jamabandi of Muraba No. 12 of Khata No. 13 of Chak Ratanpura, Tehsil Padampur, which falls within Tehsil Padampur and demonstrated that the said land is recorded in the names of petitioner-defendants and as such only the Court situated at Sri Karanpur has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs and not the Trial Court. It is argued that though the Trial Court has observed that the land of Chak No. 3- RPM is not recorded in the names of petitioner-defendants in the revenue record but despite that has held that it has jurisdiction to try the case, it is argued that looking to the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the Trial Court has erred in deciding the issue No. 10 against the petitioner-defendants. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may kindly be set aside. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and persued the impugned order. 5. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-defendants and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it has held that though the land of Chak No. 3-RPM falling in Tehsil Raisinghnagar is not recorded in the names of petitioner-defendants but the Court cannot enter into the said dispute and it can only take into consideration the pleadings raised by the plaintiffs in their suit, wherein they have specifically claimed that the petitioner-defendants have agreed to sell the land of Chak No. 3-RPM situated in Tehsil Raisinghnagar and, therefore, it has jurisdiction to try the suit. The Trial Court has further clarified that the question whether the land of Chak No. 3 RPM of Tehsil Raisinghnagar is Khatedari land of the petitioner-defendants or not, would be considered at the later stage but as per the pleadings of the plaintiff-respondents, it has jurisdiction to try the case. 6. This Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly observed that as per the pleadings of plaintiffs, the land, for which the agreement to sell was executed, falls within the jurisdiction of the Court situated at Raisinghnagar and, therefore, it has jurisdiction to try the said case and the question regarding the ownership of the said land would be decided at later stage. 7. After carefully going through the order impugned passed by the Trial Court, this Court does not find any error in it, hence, no vase for interference is made out. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Stay petition also stands dismissed.