- (1.) KAMAL Kishore, J. This is a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3-4-1982 passed by Sri Harish Chandra the then learned District Judge, Bahraich, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court in Suit No. 227 of 1977, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal are that the plaintiffs appellants have filed the suit for injunction. Later on the relief for possession was also added before the learned trial Court. It appears that the plaintiff has originally filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction with respect to the land specified in para No. 1 of the plaint claiming themselves to be the bhumidhars in possession over the disputed land. THEir allegations were that the defendants have got nothing to do with this land but they have been threatening to interfere in their possession over it. As such the relief claimed by them was that the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering in their possession over the disputed land. Through amendment of the relief clause the plaintiffs prayed that in case in the opinion of the Court the plaintiffs are not found in possession over the disputed land then they may be delivered possession over the land also. A preliminary issue was framed to the effect that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. THE learned trial Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. In appeal the first appellate Court has maintained the order passed by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs appellants have preferred this appeal. I have heard arguments and have gone through the record. The following substantial question of law is being formulated: "whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit as mentioned in the question No. 1 of the substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal. "
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the relief for possession of bhumihari land has also been sought in the matter before me and before the Courts below. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in 1973 RD 365 (SC), Chandrika Misirv. Bhaiya Lal, that the suit for possession of bhumidhari land is of description falling under Section 209 Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, is barred under Section 331 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and hence Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The aforesaid ruling and law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in the ruling reported in 1978 ALJ 1273, Kishori Lalv. Shambhu Nath. In that case this Court had allowed the appeal and ordered for return of the plaint for presentation to Revenue Court after making necessary amendments. Accordingly, the question of law formulated by this Court is answered in negative. Lastly it was argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit and at the most the Courts below could have ordered for return of the plaint. I find substance in this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1973 RD 365 (SC), Chandrika Misirv. Bhaiya Lal, was followed by this Court in the ruling reported in 1978 ALJ 1273, Kishori Lalv. Shambhu Nath, wherein it has been further held that in such case the proper course is to order for return of plaint for presentation to Revenue Court after making necessary amendments.;