JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Petitioner-defendants have preferred this revision petition under section 115 CPC to challenge order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Pratapgarh (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby learned Court below has dismissed their application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in a suit for perpetual injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff. 2. While resisting the suit of respondent-plaintiff, as barred by law, at the behest of petitioners, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was filed before the learned Court below. In the application, it is, inter-alia, averred that the land in question is an agricultural land, and therefore, suit for injunction before the civil Court is not maintainable. The application is contested by the respondent plaintiff. Learned trial Court, after hearing rival parties, by the order impugned, rejected the application of the petitioners. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and also gone through the averments made in the plaint. 4. Order 7, Rule 11 CPC empowers a Court to reject a plaint if it is not disclosing cause of action, is barred by law or some other reason specified under other sub-clauses. Precisely, in the instant case, petitioners have invoked Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, which envisages that plaint is liable to be rejected if it is barred by law. The legal position is no more res-integra that while deciding application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, Court is required to see the averments made in the plaint, and the defence if any putforth by the defendant cannot be taken into consideration. While it is true that petitioners have vociferously contended that the dispute relates to an agricultural land but the said fact is not discernible from the averments made in the plaint. Even if, contention of the petitioner has some foundation in the backdrop of averments contained in the plaint, it has become a contentious issue, which cannot be decided without evidence of the rival parties. 5. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, learned Court below has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, revision petition fails and the same is hereby rejected summarily.