R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 6.5.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner to decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further in the case was rejected by the respondent No. 2 , the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etah and the order dated 27.5.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the trial Court was dismissed.
(3.) It appeal's that a suit was filed by respondent No. 3 for ejectment of the petitioner and for recovery of the rent and damages. In the said suit, petitioner filed an application for returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. According to the petitioner. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. The suit was cognizable by Judge, Small Causes Court. The said application was objected to and opposed by the respondent No. 3. It was contended that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. There was, therefore, no question of returning the plaint. The trial Court, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, dismissed the application with the observation that issue No. 4 involved the question of law and fact therefore, the same cannot be decided without evidence oral and documentary of the parties. He consequently, by order dated 6.5.2000, dismissed the application. Challenging the validity of the said order, revision was filed which was also dismissed, hence the present petition.;