JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 27.1.2015 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metro ('the trial court'), whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent - plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, inter alia, with the averments that the respondent - Society was running a school in the name of Manu Bal Niketan and the same was being operated in the premises of the petitioners on nominal rent. Submissions were made regarding the user of the premises and the attempts being made by the petitioners to take possession of premises in question, based on the said averments, injunction was sought against the petitioners - defendants. 3. The petitioners filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, with the averments that the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act'). Plea was also raised regarding the plaint being barred under Sections 58 & 117 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. 4. The application was contested by the respondent - plaintiff. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as in the plaint there is no mention of the fact that the land in question was agricultural land, the plaint cannot be rejected being barred under Section 207 of the Act. The plea raised pertaining to the suit being barred under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 was also negated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 1 while filing the suit, has suppressed the fact in the plaint that the land in question is an agricultural land, however, the documents, which have been filed alongwith the plaint, which are integral part of the plaint, clearly indicates that the land in question is an agricultural land and has not been converted so far. 7. Reference was made to an agreement dated 20.9.1999 and the release deed executed in the year 2014, which have been filed alongwith the plaint, wherein specifically the land in question has been indicated as an agricultural land, based on which it is submitted that the suit is barred under Section 207 of the Act and consequently, the plaint was liable to be rejected. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that though the documents filed alongwith the plaint may indicate the land in question as an agricultural land, the same is being used for non-agricultural purposes and the entire land is surrounded by Abadi and, therefore, the suit was maintainable. 9. Further submissions have been made that as the plaintiff has only filed a simple suit for injunction and no relief pertaining to the land being agricultural has been sought, it cannot be said that the suit would be barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act. 10. Reliance was placed on judgment in Hansraj v. Gouri Shanker & Anr., 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 273. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. A bare perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff has filed a simple suit for injunction. It is true that in the plaint the plaintiff has not made any reference about the nature of land being agricultural, however, by clever drafting of a plaint, the nature of suit cannot be altered and if the plaint, as filed, is read with the documents filed with it, it is apparent that the land in question is unconverted agricultural land. 13. The plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent that as the suit has been filed for injunction and there is no relief based on the fact that land in question is an agricultural land, therefore, the suit would be maintainable before the Civil Court, has no substance, inasmuch as, a suit for injunction even in case of agricultural land, would lie under the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act and it is not necessary that the plea raised in the suit must pertain to some agricultural event. 14. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent that as the land in question is being used for non-agricultural purposes and, therefore, the suit would be maintainable, the said aspect has been thoroughly considered by this Court in Lal Singh Jhala v. Panna Lal : S.B. Civil Misc. 14. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent that as the land in question is being used for non-agricultural purposes and, therefore, the suit would be maintainable, the said aspect has been thoroughly considered by this Court in Lal Singh Jhala v. Panna Lal : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1644/2012, decided on 22.8.2016, wherein, after noticing the entire law on the subject, it was laid down as under:- "In view of the categorical law laid down by this Court in the case of Jannat Firdosh (supra), relied on in the case of Premi Devi (supra) and in the case of Ram Kripal Das Ji Charitable Trust (supra), with minor aberration in the case of Kan Mal (supra) based on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi (supra) which judgment, as discussed does not pertain to the present subject matter and in the case of Smt. Nenu Devi (supra) which judgment is self contradictory, it is well settled that pertaining to an unconverted agricultural land, the suit would lie before the Revenue Court only and the Civil Court's jurisdiction would be barred under the provisions of section 207 of the Tenancy Act." 15. So far as the judgment in the case of Hansraj (supra) is concerned, the Court had not considered as to whether the nature of land in question was in fact agricultural or not and has assumed the same as an Abadi land and, therefore, the said judgment would have no application to the facts of the present case. 16. In view of the above fact situation, wherein material available on record clearly indicates the land in question being agricultural and the suit being a simple suit for injunction, the same before Civil Court was apparently barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. 17. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 27.1.2015 passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed. The plaint filed by the plaintiff is rejected being barred by law. No order as to costs.