JUDGMENT : 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bundi (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.17/2022 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.3 (for brevity, “the defendant no.3”) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent no.1/plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents no.2 & 3/defendants no.1 & 2 and the defendant no.3 stating therein that he has purchased the subject property comprising of a plot measuring 100 feet x 150 feet from the defendant no.1 through an agreement to sell dated 09.01.2022 and received its possession. It was alleged that instead of executing its sale deed in his favour, the defendant no.1 has sold the subject property to the defendant no.3 on asking of the defendant no.2. Alleging that now the defendants were trying to raise construction on the subject plot, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. Therein, the defendant no.3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising objection as to its maintainability in view of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, “the Act of 1955”). The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.04.2022, impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order dated 13.04.2022, learned counsel for the defendant no.3, inviting attention of this Court towards the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2022, a part of the plaint, would submit that therein, it is specifically stated that the subject land is agricultural land as it was not mutated in the revenue record. He submits that since the suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction has been filed in respect of an agricultural land, in view of provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955, it is the Revenue Court only which has jurisdiction to try it. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 13.04.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, relies upon following judgements:- (1) Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur & Ors.: 2018(3) RLW 1988 (Raj.) (2) Hastimal & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, relies upon following judgements:- (1) Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur & Ors.: 2018(3) RLW 1988 (Raj.) (2) Hastimal & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Pushpa & Ors.: 2021(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 297 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that since the land is being used for ‘abadi’, even if it is recorded in the revenue record as ‘agricultural’, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try it. Inviting attention of this Court towards the definition of ‘land’ under Section 5 (24) of the Act of 1955, he submits that to oust jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, it should be used for agricultural purposes or purpose subservient thereto. He submits that since, admittedly, the subject land is not being used for agricultural purposes, the learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by the defendant no.3. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgements:- (1) Gopal Vs. Durga Prasad: 1974 RLW 151 (2) Srimohan @ Mohan Lal Joshi Vs. Sitaram Joshi & Ors.: 1997 (3) WLC 28 (3) Kamlesh Vs. Liquidator, Bhopal Cooperative Society Lts. & Ors.: 2013 (2) RLW 1019 5. Heard. Considered. 6. While dismissing the application filed by the defendant no.3, the learned trial Court has held that since, from the averments in the plaint, use of the subject land is reflected as ‘residential’, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. Although, the plaint does not reveal the nature of the subject land; but, the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2022, a part of the plaint, reflects the subject land to be ‘agricultural’ in nature. Even otherwise also, the subject land is ‘agricultural’ in nature, is not disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff. Section 207 of the Act of 1955 bars jurisdiction of the Court other than a Revenue Court to take cognizance of a suit which is specified in the III Schedule. Indisputably, the suit for injunction in respect of an agricultural land finds place in the III Schedule. Thus, apparently, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction in respect of an agricultural land is barred by law. 7. Indisputably, the suit for injunction in respect of an agricultural land finds place in the III Schedule. Thus, apparently, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction in respect of an agricultural land is barred by law. 7. The submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, placing reliance upon Section 5 (24) of the Act of 1955, that unless the subject land is put to agricultural use or subservient use thereto, the Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction, is wholly misconceived and does not merit acceptance. Under Section 5 (24), the ‘land’ also includes the land occupied by houses and enclosures situated on a holding. Thus, actual use of the subject land for agricultural purposes or the purposes subservient thereto, is not sine qua non to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 8. It is not the nature of the actual use of the subject land which is the real test to assess the jurisdiction of the Court; but, the nature of the subject land. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. (supra), while negating the argument raised by the plaintiff that since, no relief is based on the fact that the land in question is agricultural land, the suit before the Civil Court would be maintainable, held as under:- “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. 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.” 9. Similarly, in case of Hastimal & Ors. 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.” 9. Similarly, in case of Hastimal & Ors. (supra), while recording contention of the plaintiff in para no.4 and findings of the learned trial Court on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in para no.5, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court recorded its conclusion in paras no.25 & 26 as under:- “4. The application was contested by the plaintiff inter alia with the submissions that the land in question falls within the limits of Jodhpur Metro area, is within the jurisdiction of Jodhpur Development Authority ('JDA'), around the plot in question, entire residential colony is situated and the same is being used for residential purposes and, therefore, the application filed by the defendants deserves dismissal. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the plaintiff had indicated in the plaint that the plot was being used for residential purpose and is within the JDA limits and the defendants have taken residential electricity connection, the said aspect could only be decided after the evidence is led by the parties and based on its observations, rejected the application filed by the defendants. 25. This Court in the case of Lal Singh Jhala (supra) after considering various judgments and relying on judgment in the case of Premi Devi v. Deva Ram & Ors.: 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 410 inter-alia came to the conclusion that the actual use of the land is inconsequential for determining the jurisdiction of the court and same has been to be decided based on the nature of the land. 26. In view of the above factual and legal position, apparently as the suit land is an agricultural land as per the plaint averments, the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 and trial court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner -defendants.” 10. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid precedential law, it is established that irrespective of its actual use, if the nature of subject land is agricultural and the suit falls under Schedule III, the Revenue Court only shall have jurisdiction to try it. 11. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid precedential law, it is established that irrespective of its actual use, if the nature of subject land is agricultural and the suit falls under Schedule III, the Revenue Court only shall have jurisdiction to try it. 11. The judgements relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff are of no assistance to him having been rendered in entirely different facts and circumstances. 12. In case of Gopal (supra), the subject land, a garden enclosed in the `pucca’ compound wall within the boundary of the temple and the pond attached to the temple, was granted for this purpose and not for agricultural purpose. Therein, it was held that the evidence on record revealed that it was an ‘abadi’ and was not an ‘agricultural land’. This Court appreciated that from the evidence of the then Chairman of the Municipal Council, Khetri, it was established that the subject land was within the municipal limits of the town of Khetri and it was assigned municipal no.39 and there was no rebuttal to the evidence that it was not ‘abadi’ land; rather, DW 3 has admitted that the land was ‘abadi’. In the light of aforesaid evidence, this Court rejected contention of the defendant that the suit was triable only by the Revenue Court. However, in the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the subject land was ever reserved or set apart for ‘abadi’ as per Section 103 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for brevity, “the Act of 1956”) which defines ‘abadi’/’abadi area’ or ‘abadi land’ as under:- “Section 103 (b): “abadi” or “abadi area” or “abadi land” means the population area of a village, town or city and includes the site of such village, town or city, land reserved and set apart under Section 92 for the development of abadi therein and land held therein for building purposes whether a building has been constructed thereon or not.” 13. Therefore, this judgement has no applicability in the present case. 14. Therefore, this judgement has no applicability in the present case. 14. In case of Srimohan @ Mohan Lal Joshi (supra), while hearing an appeal against the order dated 16.02.1996 passed by the learned trial Court deciding the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and permanent injunction with regard to an immovable property entered into revenue record as ‘abadi’ and ‘banjar land’, this Court held that the question whether the land is an agricultural land is essentially a question of fact which can only be adjudicated upon after recording evidence of the parties and the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, ought to have been decided after recording evidence of the parties. However, as already observed, in the present case, it is undisputed position that nature of the subject land is ‘agricultural’ and no trial/evidence is required to ascertain its nature. Even otherwise also, it is trite law that if a suit, from the averments in the plaint, appears to be barred by law, it should be rejected at the initial stage. 15. Their Lordships have, in case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 held as under:- “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: "It is dangerous to be too good." 16. In case of Kamlesh (supra), while deciding the civil second appeal involving the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court which was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial Court holding the land in question as ‘abadi’, this Court has held that since the demised land was not covered under the definition of ‘land’ under Section 5 (24) of the Act of 1955, there was no question of applicability of Section 207 of the Act. However, in the present case, no such situation obtains. The subject land does not satisfy the requirement of ‘abadi’ land so as to oust jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. 17. Since, in the present case, nature of the land as ‘agricultural’ is an admitted position, in the considered opinion of this Court, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is hit by Section 207 of the Act of 1955. In view thereof, the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the defendant no.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 18. Resultantly, this civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 13.04.2022 is quashed and set aside. However, instead of rejecting the plaint, it is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent jurisdictional Revenue Court as prayed by his learned Senior Counsel.