S.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.)THIS is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Budaun reversing that of the Munsif Budaun who had directed the respondent's plaint to be returned for presentation to the revenue court on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction, and directing the Munsif to re-admit the suit and decide it according to law. The plaintiff-respondent, Inder Narain Raizaday, filed a suit against the applicants praying for recovery of possession of a plot of agricultural land, for damages, for demolition of constructions alleged to have been made on his land by some of the defendants and for a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with his possession.
(2.)THE defendants resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff had any claim or title to the land. In this revision I am not, however, concerned with the merits of the dispute but with the plea of jurisdiction raised by the defendants. They contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction because the suit was based on a cause of action in respect of which the revenue court could grant the relief of possession. They invoked the bar of Section 242 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.
The trial court upheld this objection and returned the plaint for proper presentation to the revenue court. On appeal the learned Civil Judge disagreed with the Munsif and held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He remanded the case with a direction for disposal of the suit by the Munsif. The defendants have come here in revision against that order.

(3.)MR . S.S. Verma for the applicants contended that the view of the lower appellate court is contrary to law and as his order confers on the Munsif a jurisdiction which the latter does not possess, this Court should interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. He relied upon a number of decisions of this Court interpreting the effect of section 242 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, On the other hand Mr. Radhey Shyam holding the brief of Sri Dhruva Narain contended that the view of the appellate Judge is correct. He too relied on a number of authorities.