D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioners had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners or from interfering with title and not to transfer the property to some one else.
(2.) Shri S. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamlndarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) but there is no prayer for ejectment as is contemplated under Section 209 of the said Act on person occupying the land without title. On the other hand. It appears to be under Section 208 of the said Act wherein without suing for ejectment, the landholder may sue for injunction with or without compensation ; or for the repair of the waste or damage, caused to the holding.
(3.) Learned trial court and revisional court had found that the names of defendants have been recorded in the revenue record while that the petitioners do not find any place in the revenue record and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable before the civil court and is cognizable by revenue court. This was so found while deciding the preliminary objection as to its Jurisdiction framed as issue No. 2. These orders have been assailed in the present writ petition on the ground that the learned courts below have failed to exercise their Jurisdiction in not entertaining the suit.;