S.N.DEEDWANIA, J. - (1.) THESE two civil misc. appeals involving similar questions of law and facts are disposed by this judgment. Appeal No. 202 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed son of Haji Peerji is against the judgment and decree, dated July 30, 1976 of learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi and the other appeal No. 203 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Akbar son of Gulam Ahmed is against judgment the and decree, dated July 29, 1976 of the same court.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts relating to the State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed are these. Gulam Ahmed filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Abu Road for permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan and the District Forest Officer, Sirohi for restraining them to recover the amount alleged to be due against him for wrongful felling of the trees. The allegations contained in the plaint were these. Plaintiff Gulam Ahmed took contract for the manufacture of coal from the State of Rajasthan for the year 1966 -67 in forest area namely 'Kumbha coupe matar mata' in Compartment No. 20 -A for a sum of RS. 60, 100/ -. The plaintiff took possession of the area on 19 -11 -66. He could cat the wood and manufacture the coal up to 30 -4 -66 and remove manufactured coal by 30 -6 -66. The possession of the said area was handed over to the Forest Range Officer, Sirohi and foliar -book was also delivered on 30 -6 -66. The plaintiff had deposited RS. 6.010/ -as earnest money for the contract. The State of Rjasthan did not return the earnest money and, therefore, civil suit No. 66 of 1969 for the recovery of the same was filed in the court of Additional District Judge, Sirohi which was transferred to the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sirohi. The District Forest Officer, Sirohi issued a notice on 19 -10 -68 to the plaintiff that he has not tendered the resignation according to the rules and some damage was caused to the surrounding forest area for which, he was liable to pay the damages in the sum of Rs. 30, 722/ -. The plaintiff suitably replied to the notice and denied his liability to pay any damages and furher asserted that the possession of the forest area was handed over on 30 -6 -66. Some more correspondence was exchanged between the parties. It appears that a notice under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (here in -after referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the plaintiff by the Tehsildar, Pindwara for the recovery of Rs. 30, 722/ -. It is further alleged that the said recovery is illegal and the defendants, be restrained from effecting this recovery. The defendants denied the allegations contained in the plaint and further asserted that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It appears that before the issues were framed, the suit of the plaintiff pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Sirohi was decreed Learned Munsif framed several issues and the following issues were decided as preliminary issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff had surrendered the Coupe Matar Mata to the defendants on 30 -6 -66 ? (2) Whether the judgment passed in civil suit No. 54 of 1970 Gulam Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan of learned Civil Judge, Sirohi is res -judicata for this suit ? The finding of learned Munsif on these issues by its order, dated April 9, 1973 was that the plaintiff had surrendered the said Coupe to the defendants on 30 -6 -66 but the earlier suit would not operate as res judicata with regard to issue No. 2 but operate a res judicate in respect of issue No. 1. These issues in the earlier suit were as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff surrendered the Coupe on 30 -6 -67 to the Range Forest Officer ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get RS. 6,310/ - from the defendant as alleged in para No. 6 of the plaint ? Learned Munsif who decided those issues was transferred and his successor completely ignoring the issues and findings of his predecessor framed new issues and tried the following issues as preliminary - 11. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter ? 12. Whether the suit is under valued if so whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter ? 13. Whether this Court is barred by any provision of Land Revenue Act from entertaining this suit ? 14. Whether plaintiff is bound to deposit Rs. 30,722/ -and only then can be no heard ? The finding of the new Munsif was that the court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and it was properly valued. It was further held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the fact that the dispute fell under Section 256(a) (i) and (b) and (c) of the Act and Section 259 of the Act is a bar to the suit. It was also held that the suit could not be tried before the plaintiff deposited a sum of RS. 37,722/ -. In view of these findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff filed an appeal against this judgment, dated March 26, 1974. The appellate court framed the following three questions for determination - 1. Whether the decision of the Civil Judge, Sirohi will operate as res judicata in respect of issue No. 2 framed by the Court below on 3.5.72 ? 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act ? 3. Whether the plaintiff was bound to deposit Rs. 30,722/ - before vindicating his right in the civil court ? It was held by the appellate court that the decision of the Civil Judge, Sirohi would operate as res judicata in respect of issue No. 2 framed by the earlier Munsif on 3.5.72 and jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred as the proceedings under the Act for the recovery of the said amount had not been started at the time of the institution of the suit in the court of Munsif, Abu Road. It was further held that the plaintiff was not required to deposit the amount of compensation claimed by the defendant as the proceedings under Section 256(a) of the Act had not started before the suit was filed. The facts in the other appeal are similar except that the forest area is different and so also the amount of damages claimed by the defendant. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.
(3.) IT is argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellate court was grossly in error in observing that the process of recovery under Section 256(a) of the Act has been not started at the time of the institution of the suit, and, therefore, this suit was not maintainable. The plaintiff, in para 8 of the plaint had specifically stated that a notice under Section 256 of the Act was issued by the Tehsildar, Pindwara to him for recovery of Rs. 33,722/ -. Once the process of recovery had started, no court was competent to grant any injunction because of the provisions of the Act. The contention was substantiated by the observations made in Ratanlal v. State of Rajasthan 1973 R.L.W. 437.;