ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants aggrieved against the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Original Case No.93/2025 titled as “Kashiram Vs. Aman Tikka & Ors.” whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying that land of plot No. 51 measuring 30’ x 60’ (1800 sq. ft.) situated at in Chak No.11 AM Patthar No.166/410 (37) Kila No.23, has been in the ownership of the plaintiff and further prayed for grant of permanent injunction. 2. In the civil suit, it was stated that the petitioners were having the agricultural land in Chak No.11 AM Patthar No.166/410 (37), total 0.2400 hectare i.e. 08 Bigha 19 Biswa. In the year 2006, the petitioners- defendants submitted a proposal for developing a residential colony over the aforesaid piece of land. Thereafter, by telling the respondent- plaintiff that the permission for developing a residential colony has been obtained by them, sold the plots to him and various persons. In the plaint, it was also averred that attempts being made by the petitioners- defendants to forcibly dispossess the respondent- plaintiff from the premises in question. On these grounds, injunction was sought against the petitioners- defendants. 3. The petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order VII and Rule 11 CPC inter alia with the averments that the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The respondent- plaintiff filed reply to the application on the stating that the land in question is not an agricultural land and the same was being used for residential purposes. Further, the office of Town Planner, Bikaner vide communication dated 29.09.2006 addressed to Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rawatsar has granted permission for development of residential colony in relation to the land in question. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 06.09.2025 rejected application filed by the petitioners- defendants under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC negating the plea with regard to land in question being agricultural land and, therefore, the suit being barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 5. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 06.09.2025 rejected application filed by the petitioners- defendants under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC negating the plea with regard to land in question being agricultural land and, therefore, the suit being barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants submitted that a bare perusal of the para No.2 and 3 of the plaint clearly indicates that the land in question is an agricultural land and has not been converted so far. No document establishing that the land in question has been converted for non-agricultural purposes by the concerned Government officials is placed on record. Mere filing an application seeking conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes ipso facto would not mean that the permission for converting the land for non-agricultural purposes has been granted. 6. On these grounds, learned counsel contended that the suit is barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and consequently, the same was liable to be rejected. Reliance was placed on judgment in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.54/2015 “Karan Singh & Ors. vs. Manu Bal Shikshan Sansthan & Ors.” decided on 09.05.2018. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1- plaintiff submitted that in the plaint, specific averment has been made that vide communications dated 29.09.2006, the land has been permitted to be used for residential purposes. He submitted that the nature of land had already changed from agricultural to non-agricultural (residential) and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the defendants- petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel submitted that on perusal of the entire statements in the plaint, it is evident that the same discloses a case triable by competent Civil Court for the simple reason that in the year 2006, the nature of the land has been changed. Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned order dated 06.09.2025, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners- defendants themselves in a Civil Suit No.193/2014 titled as “Omprakash & Ors. vs. Aman Tikka” filed before the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar in their written statement had accepted that the land in question has been converted for residential purposes and after obtaining due permission, the residential plots in relation thereof have been sold and possession has been handed over to the respective buyers. vs. Aman Tikka” filed before the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar in their written statement had accepted that the land in question has been converted for residential purposes and after obtaining due permission, the residential plots in relation thereof have been sold and possession has been handed over to the respective buyers. Learned counsel lastly contended that the law is well settled that at the time of consideration of prayer under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look into the plaint only to come to the conclusion whether it discloses the cause of action to be tried or not. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- i) “Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & ors.”: Civil Appeal No.448 of 2004 reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 ii) “Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA) (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS”: Civil Appeal No.9519 of 2019 reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 iii) “ Magan Lal Bhati Vs. Rameshwar Lal Bhati ”: S.B. Civil First Appeal No.326/2022 decided on 18.02.2025 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 9. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is reproduced below for ready reference:- “ 207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only— (1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suitor application. Explanation— If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted.” 10. The para No.2, 3 and 10 of the plaint upon which much reliance was placed by both the learned counsel are reproduced below for ready reference:- 11. A bare perusal of the para No.2 and 3 of the plaint clearly indicates that the nature of land being agricultural has been mentioned. The para No.2, 3 and 10 of the plaint upon which much reliance was placed by both the learned counsel are reproduced below for ready reference:- 11. A bare perusal of the para No.2 and 3 of the plaint clearly indicates that the nature of land being agricultural has been mentioned. The para 3 indicates that as per the respondent- plaintiff, the agricultural land was sold by telling the plaintiff that the land has been approved by the UIT, Bikaner for residential/ commercial purposes. No material is available on record to establish that the land in question has been converted for non- agricultural purposes. Merely because in one of the civil suits pending before the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, petitioners- defendants have taken a plea that the land has been converted for non-agricultural purposes, the same would not change its nature. The argument with regard to land in question being used for non-agricultural purpose and, therefore, the suit would be maintainable has been explicitly considered by this Court in “ Lal Singh Jhala vs. Panna Lal ” in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1644/2012 decided on 22.08.2016 wherein the Court has observed 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) cased 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. In view of above fact situation, in absence of any material being available on record to establish that the land in question has been converted from agricultural to residential, this Court is of the opinion that the suit filed for injunction is/was apparently barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners- defendants. 13. 13. In view of above discussion, the revision petition field by the petitioners-defendants is allowed. The order dated 06.09.2015 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Original Case No.93/2025 titled as “Kashiram vs. Aman Tikka & Ors.” is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioners- defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed. The plaint filed by the respondent- plaintiff is rejected being barred by law. 14. Stay petition also stands disposed of. 15. No order as to costs.