KALLOO Vs. JAGDAMBA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Trivedt, J By means of this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16. 4. 1982, passed by Ilnd Additional District, Judge, Sultanpufi allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate, and holding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction as well as demolition of some construction made over the land in dispute. The opposite parties contested the case and denied the allegation made in the plaint. An issue of jurisdiction of the court was also framed and learned Munsif by order dated 6-11- 1981 decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff holding that Civil Court had jurisdiction to enter tain the present suit. The defendant-opposite parties filed a revision before the District Judge, which was disposed of by the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Sultanpur, as mentioned above. The petitioner aggrieved by the said judgment filed this writ petition and petitioner's counsel contended that as the. suit was filed for injunction and demolition, therefore, Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Subhash Chandra and Sri P. L. Misra, Counsel for the opposite parties. As pointed out above, the suit is for injunction and demolition of the construction made by the defendant over the land. The relief of injunction as well as demolition both are cognizable by the Civil Court. The relief of demolition cannot be granted by the Revenue Court. It is settled law that Civil Court will have the power to entertain the suit where the main relief sought by the plaintiff is that of injunction and demolition. The relief of possession in this type of cases is merely "ancillary relief. In a case of Ram Awlamb v. Jata Shankar, 1968 RD 470, a Full Bench "of this Court took a view that Civil Court had jurisdiction where the relief sought is for injunction and demolition. The Revisional Court, while allowing the revision appears to be mis guided about the relief of possession. As pointed out above, the Full Bench was also of the view that suit for injunction and demolition lies in the Civil Court, therefore, in my opinion, the order dated 16-4-1982 is liable to be set-aside and therefore writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 16-4- 82 in hereby quashed. The Munsif Magistrate, is directed to proceed with the suit and conclude the same expeditiously, to say within one year from the date of receipt of this order. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo and they will not make any construction over the land in dispute. Petition allowed. .