S. Raghbir Singh vs Capt. Gurcharan Singh

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 18th February, 1974.

Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that he was tenant on the land in dispute and he had been illegally ejected from it by the defendant. He consequently filed a suit u/s 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act for declaration that he was a tenant of the defendant and for possession as a consequential relief

The suit was contested by the defendant who inter-alia pleaded that the plaintiff was not the tenant; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit was barred by limitation.

The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not a tenant-that the suit was barred by limitation and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit Consequently, it dismissed the suit. He went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, who did not record any finding regarding the tenancy but he affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the other two matters Consequently, he dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Courts below have held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, and, therefore, the plaint should have been ordered to be returned According to him in that situation, the suit could not be dismissed. On the other had Mr. Mangal has urged that the trial Court returned the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, therefore, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit He submits that in that situation, the suit was lightly dismissed by both the Courts.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. In order to determine as to whether the Court has the jurisdiction or not, the allegations in the plaint are to be seen In case the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred from the allegations made in the plaint, the allegations in the written statement cannot be gone into for holding that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. In the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically stated that he was a tenant of the defendant and had been illegally dispossessed by him. His stand further is that the suit was u/s 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. It is not disputed that a suit u/s 50 can be filed only in the Revenue Court as provided in section 77 (3) (g) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. If the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, it had also no jurisdiction to give the findings on the other matters Under Order 7 rule 10, if the Court has no jurisdiction, the plaint is required to be returned.

For the aforesaid reasons, I partly accept the appeal and order that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall however he liable to pay costs of the Courts below as directed by them. In view of the partial success of the appeal no order regarding costs so far this Court is concerned.