- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri S. K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri P. K. Jain, learned Counsel for the op posite parties.
(2.) THE opposite parties filed the suit for eviction. THE applicants in the written statement also challenged the title of the opposite parties. THE applicants moved an application for return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. THE trial Court has rejected the application. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been filed. The learned Counsel has relied on the decision of apex Court reported in 1993 (21) ALR 233. However this authority is of no help. Under the provisions of Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act the trial Court has exercised its discretion in not returning the plaint. The discretion can not be interfered with in this revision.
(3.) I do not find illegality in the order. This revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;