- (1.) THIS case has come to us on a reference by one of us sitting singly.
(2.) THE facts out of which the reference has arisen may be stated very shortly. Plaintiff Hema filed a suit on the 12th September, 1950, for redemption of certain agricultural land in the court of the Munsiff, Chhoti Sadri. THE Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, (Act No. I of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act) having come into force on the 31st January, 1951, the Munsiff transferred the suit to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbaheda, on the 30th April, 1951. THE Sub-Divisional Officer, however, sent the case back to the Munsiff, Chhoti Sadri, on the ground that in a similar case is was held by this Court that suits for redemption of agricultural land were triable by a civil court only. After the case was transferred to the Munsiff, Chhoti Sadri, the defendants raised an objection that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit, and Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbaheda, had no authority to re-transfer it to the Munsiff's court. THE Munsiff over-ruled the objection by his order dated the 13th of December, 1951, whereupon the petitioners in this court preferred a revision against the above order, which came before one of us and has now been referred to this Bench. THE Munsiff relied on Hira vs. Kanhaiyalal (S. B. Civil Reference No. 74 of 1951 decided on 9th August, 1951), an unreported case in which a learned single Judge (Nawal Kishore J.) took the view that a suit for redemption of agricultural land was not covered by serial No. 5 Group D of Schedule (1) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act which only deals with "application for redemption of a mortgage" and, therefore, such a suit was outside the scope of that Act. In a later case Shrichand vs. Daulatram (1) , Sharma J. held that a suit for redemption of mortgage of agricultural land was exclusively triable by a revenue court. In this state of conflict, the question that falls for consideration in this case is whether a suit for redemption of agricultural land is cognizable by the civil courts or is one which falls within sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act and is, therefore, exclusively triable by a revenue court. It is admitted before us that if such a suit was filed after the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act came into force, it would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts in view of the First Schedule. Group D, Serial No. 5 of the said Act. It is also admitted, and in our opinion quite rightly, by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the subject matter of such a proceeding would be exclusively triable by the revenue courts regardless of the consideration that the party seeking the relief filed a suit instead of an application. The simple reason is that the court must look at the substance of the matter and not merely at its outward form, and if such a suit happens to be filed in a civil court after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act, the civil court cannot take cognizance of it on account of sub-sec. (l)and (2) of sec. 7 and must return it for presentation to the proper court. The relevant portion of sec. 7 is in the following terms : - "7. (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the first and second schedules shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application, or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. " Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 lays emphasis not on the from of the proceeding which may be a suit or application but on the cause of action with respect to which relief is claimed. If such a cause of action is covered by the first or the second schedule of the Act, then it can be heard and determined only by a revenue court and the jurisdiction of a civil court must be held to be barred. It was contended, however, that a suit for redemption of agricultural land, which was already pending in civil court before the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act came into force, would still be transferred to a civil court. The answer to his question, in our judgment, depends upon sub-sec. (3) of sec 6 which deals with pending matters Sec. 6 (3) runs as follows : - "any suit, application, case or proceeding, pending before a civil court when this Act comes into force, which has been declared by sec. 7 to be exclusively triable by a revenue court, shall be transferred by such civil court to the revenue court competent under sec. 12 to deal with and dispose of the same. " The question whether a pending proceeding in a civil court is required to be transferred to the competent revenue court or not must be determined with reference to sec, 7. If the nature of the proceeding is such that it is based on a cause of action in respect of which relief can be held by means of any suit or application in a revenue court, that is, if any such suit or application is covered by the first or the second schedule of the Act, then such a suit must inevitable be heard and determined by a revenue court and no court other than a revenue court is empowered to take cognizance of any such suit or application. The matter of redemption of agricultural land by a mortgagor falls within the four corners of serial No. 5, of Group (D) of the first schedule and that group is headed as "applications triable by a Sub-Divisional Officer. " The argument that this group deals with applications only and not with suits and, therefore, pending suits would not be covered by sec. 6 (3) is bereft of any force whatever because if that argument were allowed to prevail then the jurisdiction of the court would be made to depend on merely how a suiter may choose to call his action for relief. if he calls it "application", the matter would fall within the exclusive purview of the revenue courts, but if instead he calls it a "suit" he would be able to evade the jurisdiction of the revenue courts and seeks his relief in the civil courts. Such an interpretation, if adopted, must lead to the defeat of the intent and purpose of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act, and cannot be allowed. Then again, suppose a pending proceedings of the nature under consideration, for ought we know, may be, in any of the component States now constituting the State of Rajasthan, called by the name of an "application" and not a "suit" and if so, it will be exclusively triable by a revenue court, and learned counsel for the opposite parties has nothing to say against that, and such an application even though already instituted before the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act came into force must be transferred under sec. 6 (3) of the Act to the competent revenue court. The argument that in the other case where such a proceeding is called a "suit", the provisions of sec. 6 (3) are not attracted and that a civil court can continue to exercise its jurisdiction over such a suit is not and cannot be valid because what we must look to, according to the scheme of the Act, is the cause of action or the nature and content of the proceedings rather than the nomenclature thereof. In this view, a suit for redemption of a mortgage in respect of agricultural land, even though it was pending at the time the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act came into force undoubtedly falls within the spirit and intendment of sec. 7 of the Act; and, once that is held, it must inevitably fall within the mischief of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 6 thereof. If that is so, it must follow as a necessary consequence of the provisions contained in that sub-section that the civil court must transfer such a suit to the revenue court competent under sec. 15 to deal with and dispose of it. We are, therefore, of opinion that the case of Hira vs. Kanhaiyalal was not correctly decided and that the correct view is that such a suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court and the jurisdiction of the civil court to try such a suit is barred by sub-secs. (1) and (2) of sec. 7 read with sec. 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act. We might further point out in passing that when the Munsiff had transferred the suit to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Nimbaheda in the first instance, the latter was in error in transferring it back to the Munsiff because in the event of his entertaining a doubt as to his own jurisdiction, it was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to have made a reference under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act which provides that where a civil or a revenue court. is in doubt as to its competency to entertain any suit, case, proceedings or application, the court must submit the record with a statement of its reasons of doubt to the High Court. If this course had been adopted, a good deal of the delay that has occurred in the disposal of the question before us could have been avoided. Consequently, we hold that the suit before us is exclusively triable by a revenue court, and we set aside the order of the Munsiff, dated the 13th December, 1951, and hereby direct him to transfer the suit to a revenue court competent under sec. 12 to hear and dispose of it according to law. In the circumstance of the case, we make no order as to costs. .;