Tandon, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order passed in appeal by the court below setting aside the order of the Munsif for return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court.
(2.) BHAGWAN Das Plaintiff held a decree against Umrao Singh, Defendant No. 1, who was a fixed rate tenant of the plots in suit. In execution of this decree these plots were put to sale and, purchased by the Plaintiff on 25 -3 -1942. Thereafter the sale was confirmed in his favour. The Plaintiff claimed that he obtained possession as well on 16 -6 -1942 on the lands so purchased. His allegation further is that Umrao Singh applied for the setting aside of the sale and the matter came upto this Court but he was unsuccessful and the sale remained intact. Umrao Singh made yet another effort for setting aside of the sale before the revenue court but he was not successful there either. It is next alleged that he (the Plaintiff) filed a suit against Umrao Singh under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939 for possession of those plots which are described in Sch. B of the plaint which was decreed in his favour in July 1944. According to the Plaintiff he also obtained possession of those plots in execution of the decree in December 1944. It is, however, further the allegation of the Plaintiff that the Defendants 2 to 6 have been holding the aforesaid plots on Adhia on behalf of Umrao Singh, and have in collusion with him prevented him (the Plaintiff) from taking possession of them. Then in para 7 of the plaint it is stated that the Defendants, obviously referring to all the six Defendants, have no connection with or interest in the plots but they are nevertheless sticking to them. On these allegations the Plaintiff has asked, firstly for a relief for possession over the plots mentioned in Sch. B and, secondly for a decree for Rs. 400 on account of mesne profits for the period of two years next before the institution of the suit.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 alone appeared and filed a written statement. Against the remaining Defendants the suit has proceeded in their absence. One of the defences urged was that the first Defendant was the tenant of the plots in question, hence the suit was not cognizable by a civil court, on the contrary was cognizable by the revenue court in view of Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939. The Munsiff found this issue in favour of the Defendants and directed the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. The Plaintiff appealed against this order which was reversed by the learned Civil Judge. The present revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge.;