RAM ASHERE SAVITA Vs. IIND A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 6th January, 2005, passed by the revisional authority in S.C.C. Revision No. 5 of 2002, whereby the revisional authority has allowed the revision filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 19th July, 2002, passed by the trial court and remanded back the matter to the trial court for decision in the light of the observations made in the revisional court's order.

(3.) The controversy in short is that the tenant disputed the title of the landlord with regard to the accommodation in question and consequence thereto he has filed an application with the prayer that the plaint of the suit be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the regular court. In this case the petitioner has filed his written statement and evidence is yet to be adduced before the trial court. The trial court, at this stage, come to the conclusion that since there is a dispute with regard to the title of the accommodation in question, therefore, the Courts of Small Cause do not have any jurisdiction to try the suit and it should be presented before the regular court and that is why the plaint has been returned for presentation before the regular court. Before the revisional court, learned counsel for the revisionist-landlord herein, relied upon a decision in Jagan Nath Prasad v. District Judge, Allahabad, 1987 (1) ARC 90, wherein this Court has held which is quoted below :