- (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Assistant Collector, Dungarpur under sec. 40 (2) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. 1 of 1951 ). It arises in the following circumstances.
(2.) ON the 3rd of March 1952, one Havji presented a plaint in the court of the Civil Judge Dungarpur. It was averred by him that the defendants wanted to tease him and drive him out of the village and with that end in view, they were interfering with his cultivation. It was prayed that an injunction be passed against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the cultivation of his fields which were in his patta. ON the 27th of March,1952, the Civil Judge returned the plain with direction that it could be heard by a revenue court and therefore it should be presented to a proper court. When the case came before the Assistant Collector Dungarpur, an objection was raised by the defendants that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Assistant Collector thinks that this objection is correct and therefore he has made the present reference. In the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, Schedule 1, Group B, there is only one clause serial No. 9 which empowers the Assistant Collector to try a suit for an injunction runs as follows - "for an injunction or for the repair of damage or waste or for compensation when the landholder does not use for ejectment. The last words "when the landholder does not sue for ejectment" show that this provision contemplates only those suits for injunction which are filed by the landlord against the tenant and in which the holder does not want to sue for ejectment, but only for an injunc-tion. It does not seek to contemplate a suit for injunction against a trespasser, for if a trespasser occupies the land, then the landlord cannot sue for more injunction without bringing a suit for dispossession. The previous Serial Nos. 7 and 8 are meant for suits for ejectment of tenant or sub-tenant and since serial No. 9 closely follows Nos. 7 and 8, it further supports the view that this was also provided for suits against tenants and not against trespassers. The parties have not appeared in this Court. Learned Government Advocate also supports the reference. The view of the Assistant Collector Dungarpur appears to be correct. The reference is therefore accepted, The Assistant Collector is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper civil court. .;