H.R.Sodhi, J. - (1.) THIS reference raising a question of jurisdiction has been made to this Court under Section 99 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. (Act XVI of 1887), hereinafter called the Act. Facts that led to the reference are not in controversy,
(2.) INDER claimed that he had worked as a Sanjhi (partner) in cultivation with the Defendant for some harvest but was not paid his share of 1/5th of produce from the land under cultivation. A suit for recovery of his share was initially filed by the Plaintiff on 30th May, 1968, in the Revenue Court (Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ambala City). A notice of the suit was given to the Defendant who in his written statement raised a preliminary objection that the suit did not lie in the Revenue Court. Reliance in this connection was placed by him on Section 77 of the Act it being pleaded that the case did not fall under Clause (k) of the first group referred to in Section 77(3). Section 77(3) gives a list of cases which can be instituted in, heard and determined by Revenue Courts only end no other Court can take cognizance of a dispute arising therein. The relevant extract from this section may be reproduced hereunder for facility of reference: 77. (3) The following suits shall be instituted in, and heard and determined by Revenue Courts, and no other Court shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted: * * * * * * * * * * First Group * * * * * * * * * * (k) suits by a co -sharer in an estate or holding for a share of the profits thereof or for a settlement of accounts; In order that a suit falls within the ambit of the aforesaid clause, it is necessary to determine on the facts as pleaded by the parties whether the Plaintiff suing for his share of the produce, in the circumstances alleged by him, could be treated under the law as a co -sharer in an estate or holding. The Plaintiff in the instant case accepted the force of the preliminary objection and conceded that the suit, as framed by him, was not within the cognizance of the Revenue Court and asked for return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, which meant the Civil Court. The plaint was accordingly returned by an order of the Assistant Collector as made on 30th October, 1968. The Plaintiff then filed the suit in a Civil Court where the Defendant again raised an objection that the said Court had no jurisdiction and the suit was cognizable by a Revenue Court only. The Civil Court entertained the objection and framed a preliminary issue in the following terms: Whether the suit is triable by a Civil Court.
(3.) NO evidence was produced by the parties and the Civil Court relying upon a judgment of the Punjab Chief Court reported as Sunder Singh v. Kesar Singh, 80 P.R. 1904, which was subsequently followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bakhshish Singh v. Kartar Singh, 1956 P.L.R. 476, came to the conclusion that the suit was cognizable only by a Revenue Court. Here the counsel for the Plaintiff again conceded that the suit lay in the Revenue Court and prayed for return of the plaint to him for presentation to the latter Court. Instead of returning the plaint, the Civil Court had made the present reference to this Court it being of the view that the plaint could be returned if the suit had, in the first instance, been instituted in that Court. It took notice of the order of the Court of Assistant Collector passed on 30th October, 1968, whereby the said Court had already returned the plaint on the ground that the suit did not lie in that Court.;