- (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Assistalnt Collector, Sojat, under sec. 40 (r) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951.
(2.) THE plaintiff Puria filed a suit against Chaturia and three others on the allegations that he was in possession of Lawaron-ke-Kositeka well and the land appertaining thereto in village Dudhor, and had been cultivating the land for some years but the defendants took possession of the holding on the 23rd of May 1951 in his absence. He claimed possession of the holding and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiff's property. THE suit was originally filed in the Court of Munsif, Sojat, on 26th May 1951. But the learned Munsif returned the plaint on 28th May 1951 as in his opinion the suit was triable by a Revenue Court. THE plaintiff accordingly presented the plaint on 4th June 1951 in the Court of Assistant Collectors Sojat. THE Assistant Collector framed certain issues, one of which was whether the revenue court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. THE Assistant Collector by his order dated 19th October 1951 was of opinion that the suit was triable by a civil court. After obtaining sanction of the Collector, he made a reference under sec. 40 (1)of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No. I of 1951), with a recommendation that the case may be transferred to the civil court. Under Schedule (i) Group B, item (10) a suit for the ejectment of a trespasser taking possession of land without lawful authority, is triable by an Assistant Collector. Item (12) related to recovery of possession by a person who has been wrongly ejected or for compensation or for both. The plaintiff's prayer for possession is covered by one or the other item mentioned above. As regards the prayer for permanent injunction, it is entirely unnecessary in a suit of this kind. Under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7, it is provided that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any suit or application specified in the first and second schedules, or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be contained by means of any such suit or application. The cause of action in the present case is alleged to be trespass made by the defendants. The plaintiff could claim relief for possession in respect of this cause of action and, therefore, no court other than a revenue court has jurisdiction. The explanation to sec. 7 makes it further clear that "if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than or additional to or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted". If the plaintiff could get possession through a revenue court, the other relief of permanent injunction would only be an additional relief and not quite necessary. The suit is clearly one which is triable by a revenue court. The case is, therefore, sent back to the Assistant Collector who, as discussed above, is competent to try the suit. The Assistant Collector will proceed further according to law. .;