S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in suit No. 836 of 1975, pending in the court of the Additional Munsif, Kanpur.
(2.) THE suit had been filed by Firoz Shramik Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Kanpur, opposite party no. 3, against the petitioner for an injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the opposite party no. 3. During the pendency of the suit, according to the case set up by the opposite party no. 3, certain constructions were unauthorisedly made by the petitioner on a small piece of the land in dispute. Consequently, an amendment application was moved seeking demolition and possession in respect of that piece of land, which was alleged to have been unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner. This amendment application was allowed. THEreafter, an issue was framed as to whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court by its judgment dated 14th March, 1979 held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Against the decision dated 14th March, 1979, a revision was filed by the petitioner, but the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dismissed the revision on 20th February, 1980, again holding that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. I have heared the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the view taken by the revisional court is manifestly erroneous. He has relied upon Ram Shanker Prasad v. Sarbjit, 1975 RD38. In the instant case, originally, the suit was filed for an injunction only, but, during the pendency of the suit, since it was alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly taken possession of a portion of the land and made constructions thereon, a subsequent relief was added for demolition aswell as possession. The main relief, therefore, was for an injunction. Possession was only sought in respect of the portion of the land because of the certain constructions having been made and, consequently, a decree for demolition was also prayed. The relief of injunction or demolition cannot be granted by the revenue court. Since dispossession, in the instant case, is alleged only because of a wrongful construction having been made, the relief of demolition has to be treated as the main relief and the relief of possession is an ancillary relief because dispossession is resulted only from construction and demolition is confined only to the portion on which wrongful construction has been made. It is not a case where dispossession is being sought in respect of the entire land. In view of the above, the case of Ram Shanker Prasad v. Sarbjit (Supra) does not support the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, it supports the case of the opposite party.;