- (1.) The detailed facts have been given in the judgment of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, exercising enhanced appellate powers, but in order to decide the controversy that has been raised before me, certain salient facts may be noticed.
(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from realising the amount advanced under agreement, dated August 4, 1973 and with a further prayer to direct the defendant to make payments having fallen due under the said agreement. According to the terms of the agreement, the amount was recoverable from the plaintiff in case of committing breach of the terms and conditions of the said agreement, and further payments could be stopped. It is stated that the plaintiff committed breach of the agreement and consequently the defendant obtained orders from the Collector to recover the amount from the plaintiff as arrears of land revenue. The suit was opposed by the defendant primarily on the ground that the amount was being recovered as arrears of land revenue and as such the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under Clause (xiv) of Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Besides framing other issues, the trial Court framed the following preliminary issue :- "Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ?"
(3.) The trial Court decided the issue against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff went up in appeal. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court on this issue and while partly accepting the appeal, remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh trial sofaras the claim regarding future enforcement of the agreement was concerned. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed the second appeal.;