JUDGMENT P. K Lohra, J. - By the instant revision petition petitioner-defendant has challenged order dated 22.08.2016, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby, learned Court below has rejected his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a suit for mandatory injunction filed by respondent-plaintiffs. Briefly stated, it is, inter-alia, averred in the plaint by the respondent-plaintiffs that they are availing irrigation facilities for Murabba No. 10 from Pucca Naka through Govt. Kachha Khala. It is also averred that presently this Kachha Khala's two tributaries are recorded in revenue records for agricultural land of Kila Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 and 25 ad-measuring 2 biswa each and utilized by the respondent-plaintiffs for irrigating their land since last 50 years. As per respondent-plaintiffs' positive assertion, there was no way at the agricultural land of aforesaid Kilas of Murabba No.10. Thus, prayer was made not to demolish or cause any damage to these Nakas. 2. Petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to resist the suit. In the application, petitioner raised a specific objection that suit is barred by law inasmuch as for deciding right to way approaching an agricultural land appropriate forum is revenue courts. As per petitioner, jurisdiction, in respect of such dispute, is vested in revenue courts under Sections 251 and 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'Act of 1955'). It is further pleaded in the application that pertaining to such disputes, a suit can be filed by the respondent-plaintiffs before the revenue courts under Sections 92-A and 188 of the Act of 1955. Thus, in substance, it is pleaded that suit is barred before a civil court under Section under Section 207 of the Act of 1955. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as other materials available on record. 4. It is really a cause of concern that a very vital objection sought to be raised on behalf of petitioner-defendant was touching the jurisdiction of the Court, yet the learned Court below has notmade any endeavour to examine it in right perspective. 4. It is really a cause of concern that a very vital objection sought to be raised on behalf of petitioner-defendant was touching the jurisdiction of the Court, yet the learned Court below has notmade any endeavour to examine it in right perspective. The objection regarding maintainability of the suit raised at the best of petitioner was founded on clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, which envisage that a plaint can be rejected at the threshold by the Court if it is barred by law. However, from a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that the issue raised by the petitioner has not been examined by the learned Court below while discussing the relevant provision invoked by the petitioner in the backdrop of subject-matter of the suit. 5. True it is that a Court is not expected delve deep into the matter while considering application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but then it is expected of the Court to examine the provision of which defendant has taken shelter with a plea that suit is barred by law. In the impugned order, there is no whisper about aforesaid provision and the application of the petitioner is rejected by an absolutely vague and cryptic order. Thus, in my opinion, learned Court below, while passing the impugned order has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, the order impugned is upset and matter is remanded back to learned Court below for deciding the application of petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC afresh strictly in accordance with law. 7. The stay petition is disposed of.