JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1.This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dausa (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 143/2023 titled as "Mukesh Suri Vs. Satish Chand and Ors.", whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 2 to 16. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the defendant also submits that the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court but the trial Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the defendant further submits that disputed property is agricultural land. Defendant purchased the said agricultural land by way of an agreement. In present suit, he sought relief that said agricultural land be converted under Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act and patta be issued in his favour. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the defendant further submits that said relief can only be granted by the revenue Court but the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant and observed that said issue would be decided only after evidence of the parties. So, the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the be set aside and the revision petition filed by the defendant be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that disputed land is being used as an urban land. So, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the question as to whether the relief sought by the defendant can be granted or not, would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. 8. It is an admitted position that disputed land is agricultural land and plaintiff sought the relief to convert the said land and issue patta in his favour. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. 8. It is an admitted position that disputed land is agricultural land and plaintiff sought the relief to convert the said land and issue patta in his favour. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed an error in observing that issues raised by the defendant would be decided after the evidence of the parties. Relief sought by the defendant can't be granted by the civil Court for the reason that it is within the jurisdiction of the revenue Court. So, in my considered opinion, petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint filed by the plaintiff to present the same before the proper jurisdictional Court. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.