Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) -The present appeal arises out of an order of remand passed by the court below in Civil Appeal No. 114 of 1980. The court below by the said order framed additional issues as to whether "civil court" has jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court was of the opinion that this issue goes to the very root of jurisdiction of the civil court. Hence, it is to be decided first and the judgment and decree of the trial court were consequently set aside.
(2.) THE plaintiffs of Suit No. 407 of 1975 have preferred this appeal. THE plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession. THE suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiffs are recorded bhumidhar of the old plot No. 44. (New plot No. is 113) having an area of 14 Biawas. It was pleaded that the consolidation authorities allotted new plot numbers of the defendants who are owner and bhumidhar of Plot No. 113 are trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. The suit was contested on the pleas, inter alia that the defendants have no concern with Plot No. 113. The adjoining plot which is in the shape of pond. The said plot belongs to the Town area. The town area in order to increase its income has proposed construction of shops in the said plot and the plaintiffs have no concern with the same, which is pond. The plea of insufficiency of court fee and valuation etc. were also raised. The boundaries of Plot No. 113 have not been correctly described by the plaintiffs in the plaint. At the instance of defendant the issue as to whether the suit is barred by Sections 27 and 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act was also struck.
(3.) THE trial court by judgment and decree dated 2.8.1980, decreed the suit for permanent injunction directing the defendants not to convert the disputed land in abadi and not to interfere in possession of the plaintiffs. THE trial court recorded a finding that Sections 27 and 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act do not bar the suit. It has also recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are bhumidhars of the disputed land. It has also recorded a finding that indisputably the plaintiffs are bhumidhar of old Plot No. 400 to which new Plot No. 113 has been allotted. THE defendants challenged the aforesaid decree by filing appeal before the court below. THE court below instead of deciding the issue on merits framed additional Issue No. 12, which reads as under : "Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit." And remanded the matter to the trial court. This order of remand is the subject matter of appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;