BALBODH AND OTHERS Vs. MAHABIR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question is if during the pendency of a suit the power of the civil court to take its cognizance is taken away and vested in the revenue court, is the civil court debarred from continuing to hear and determine the suit. A learned Single Judge of this Court felt that there is a conflict of opinion in this Court on this question he referred this appeal to a Division Bench. That is how the case has come before this Bench.

(2.) THE Plaintiff Appellants in 1954 filed a suit in the civil court for declaration that they were the sirdars of the agricultural plots in dispute, for possession over them and for recovery of damages. It was agreed between counsel that at that time the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. The suit was ultimately decreed in toto on 17 -4 -1964. The Defendants Respondents filed an appeal. One of the points pressed in the appeal was that during the pendency of the suit in the trial court, the civil court lost jurisdiction to take its cognizance because of the amendments made in the UP ZA and LR Act by the Amending Act No. XXVIII of 1961. This plea was upheld by the appellate court. It allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and remanded the suit to the trial court with the direction that the plaint may be returned to the Plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have come to this Court in appeal.

(3.) SECTION 242 of the Tenancy Act ran as follows: