JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Senior Civil Judge, Tonk, under sec. 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit on 6. 3. 54 against 15 defendants in the civil court. It was alleged that the defendants wrongfully prevented him from cultivating it in 1952-53 and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 14,000/- to him. THE suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- from the defendants as damages and for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in suit. On 22. 11. 55 the civil court ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the revenue court as in its opinion the suit was exclusively triable by that court. This order was not challenged on appeal and became final. The plaint was filed in the revenue court which decreed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,218/- as damages and granted a permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed. The defendants preferred an appeal against this decree in the court of Additional Commissioner No. 1, Jaipur. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the opinion that the suit was triable by the civil court and ordered the return of the plaint for being instituted in that court. When the plaint was instituted in the civil court, the present reference was made. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner is not proper inasmuch as he should have made a reference to this Court under sec. 243 (2) of the Tenancy Act which runs as follows - "where any suit, case, proceeding, application or appeal, having been rejected either by a civil court or by a revenue court on the ground of want of jurisdiction is subsequently filed in a court of the other description the latter court, if it disagrees with the finding of the former, shall submit the record with a statement of reasons for its disagreement to the High Court. " On merits also the order is erroneous. Since the institution of the suit there has been a change in the status of the plaintiff. His jagir has been resumed and under sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act he has become a Khatedar tenant of the land in suit. Sec. 188 (i) runs as follows - "any tenant whose right to or enjoyment of the whole or a part of his holding is invaded or threatened to be invaded by his landholder or any other person may bring a suit for the grant of a perpetual injunction. " A suit for permanent injunction against the defendants is thus maintainable under sec. 188 of the Tenancy Act. Further sec. 187 of the Act has also been amended by Act No. 22 of 1960 which came into force on 27. 6. 60. Sub-sec. (1) of this section runs as follows - "any tenant ejected from or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or any part thereof otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law lor the time being in force, may sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession for all or any of the foliowing reliefs namely - (i) for possession of the holding; (ii) for compensation for wrongful ejectment or dispossession; (iii) for compensation for any improvement he may have made; Provided that no decree for possession shall be passed where the plaintiff at the time of the decree, is liable to ejectment in accordance with the provisions of this Act within the current agricultural year. " The suit is thus maintainable under this section for compensation for wrongful ejectment or dispossession. The allegation of the plaintiff in substance is that he was prevented from cultivating his holding by the wrongful act of the defendants who dispossessed him temporarily. A suit for compensation alone is now maintainable under sec. 187 (i) (ii) of the Act. The decision in Moti Singh Vs. Chunni Lal (1) is no longer good law in view of the amendment to sec. 187. The present suit is thus exclusively triable by the revenue court and the decision of the Assistant Collector is one within the jurisdiction of the court which decided it. I accordingly accept the reference, set aside the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 19. 9. 60 and remand the appeal to him for decision on merits in accordance with law. .;