R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The present appeal has been filed by plaintiff/appellant.
(2.) Shishupal and others filed civil suit No. 79/82 against Shyam Singh and others before the Court of Additional Civil Judge Moradabad. The suit was undisputably with regard to cultivatory land. The plaintiff in that case sought the relief for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants that the defendants should not interfere in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff. The defendants contested the suit and alleged that the plaintiffs are neither the owners of the land in suit nor they are in possession and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit for declaration of right in respect of disputed agricultural land, has been filed by the plaintiffs and the same is pending before the Revenue Court. The issues were struck by the trial Court upon the pleadings of the parties. Out of these issues, the following issues are relevant for decision with reference to the present appeal. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are Bhumidhars Kastkars of the disputed property? 2. Whether the disputed property is in possession and use of the plaintiffs? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief? 7. Whether the suit is barred by principles of res judicata? 8. Whether the suit is barred by Section 331 of U. P. Z.A. & L.R. Act? As regards issue No. 1 the trial Court recorded the factual finding that the plaintiffs are not Bhumidhars owners of the land in suit. In this connection it was also mentioned that the plaintiff calls himself to be merely sikmi tenant. As regards issue No. 2 the trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff is in possession over the land in suit. Issue No. 7 was decided in favour of plaintiffs and the finding recorded was that the suit is not barred by the principles of res judicata. The issue No. 8 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff, and the trial Court recorded the conclusion that the Civil Court has power to try the suit. Accordingly issue No. 6 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the trial Court granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed by him, decreeing the suit for perpetual injunction and directing the defendants not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land. Aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, the defendants preferred appeal in the Court of District Judge Moradabad. Defendants appeal was allowed by 4th Additional District Judge Moradabad by order dated 3-4-91, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed and trial Court judgment was set aside. Aggrieved there by the present second appeal has been filed by plaintiff/appellant. I have heard Sri G. N. Verma learned counsel for the appellant and reserved the judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant also filed written argument and the same is available on file. From the side of the learned counsel for the appellant mainly 3 points have been raised in support of the appeal. According to plaint allegations the suit has been filed for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land and the relief of perpetual injunction cannot be granted by any other Court except civil Court. In this very sequence it was contended that the name of plaintiff was entered in Revenue Records and on that basis also the plaintiff was entitled to get the relief of perpetual injunction.
(3.) According to the learned counsel for the appellant merely on the ground that the proceeding is pending before the Revenue Court in respect of the disputed land, there was no justification to bar a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same land. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit, in that circumstance the appellate or revisional Court can interfere in the matter only if the question of jurisdiction had been raised at the initial stage before the trial Court itself apart from showing at the same time on behalf of the defendant that injustice has been caused to him on account of decision of the suit by Civil Court.;