T.C. Shrivastava, J. - (1.)THIS petition for revision is by the defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act claiming possession of certain lands which he claimed to hold in Bhumidhari rights by virtue of a Bale deed, dated 27 -2 -1961 executed by the holders of the lands, Brij Rani and Maheshkumar. He alleged that the defendant had dispossessed him on 11 -5 -1961. The defendant pleaded that he purchased the lands from one Sunderlal on 3 -5 -1961 and he and his predecessor had all along been in possession. The defendant also raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not tenable under section 250 read with section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The preliminary objection was overruled by the trial Court and the defendant has therefore filed this petition for revision. Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, provides that a Bhumi -swami who has been dispossessed from his land otherwise than in due course of law, may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession within two years from the date of dispossession and the Tahsildar, after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties, order restoration of possession to the Bhumiswami and put him in possession thereof. Section 257 of the Code provides that "Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no civil Court shall entertain any suit or application...decide or dispose of". It is contended by Shri A. R. Choubey for the applicant -defendant that by virtue of these two provisions read together the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded and a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is not tenable.
(2.)SECTION 250 of the Land Revenue Code of 1959 does not correspond to any section in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code of 1954, though the language somewhat resembles the provisions in section 100 of the C. P. Tenancy Act. The exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Court by special tribunals is not to be readily assumed, and very clear words to take away jurisdiction of the Courts are necessary as has been held in Secretary of State v. Mask and Company, AIR 1840 PC 105. In interpreting the provisions of exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Court it in therefore necessary to put a strict construction. The expression "Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force" occurring in section 257 of the Land Revenue Code of 1959 clearly saved the effect of such provisions in other enactments. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act specially provides for a suit by the plaintiff on dispossession within six months before the suit and such a suit would be saved by this expression. I do not agree with the contention of Shri Choubey that the enactment meant in section 257 is only that one which expressly refers to the Revenue Code and takes out any particular suit from the jurisdiction of the revenue officer. Such an interpretation is not justified on the wordings of section 257 and it would require addition of words limiting the general nature of the enactment to lead to this effect. Shri A. P. Sen for the non -applicant relied upon section 100 of the C. P. Tenancy Act as interpreted in Jiwandhar v. Bakaram : 1944 NLJ 62 : AIR 1944 Nag. 92 : ILR 1944 Nag. 135; but that decision is not helpful, as the first proviso to that section expressly provides for determination of the question of title by a suit in spite of the summary decision of the revenue officer. Before the Land Revenue Code was enacted, any person who was dispossessed from his land had a right to file a suit for possession in a civil Court. The remedy which has been given under section 250 of the Code of 1959 is an additional remedy which he can avail if he so likes. It does not appear to be an exclusive remedy. In any case, it cannot be considered to be an exclusive remedy to exclude a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, as such a suit is saved by Section 257.
The trial Courts has also referred to the language of clause (x) in section 257 which excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court to challenge "any decision regarding reinstatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed under section 250". As would appear from the language of the other clauses in that section, where a claim was intended to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil Court, it has been made clear by using the word "claim". The fact that a "decision" only is mentioned in clause (x) shows that if a decision has been arrived at by the revenue Court, a civil Court will have no power to challenge it. However, before any such decision has been made, the power of the civil Court to try the action is preserved. The decision of the trial Court holding that it has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is correct. This petition for revision is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 25 only.