RADHEY SHYAM Vs. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question of involved is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the case. According to the plaint, copy Annexure -3, the Plaintiff claimed to be the Bhumidhar in -possession of the land in dispute and the trees thereon, and alleged that the Defendants, having cut away one of the trees, were threatening to dispossess him, A relief of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant -Petitioners from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession over the land in dispute and the trees thereon, in addition to a decree for Rs. 200/ - by way of damages, was claimed.

(2.) ON a preliminary issue framed, regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court both the courts below upheld the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

(3.) THE case of Himmat Singh v. Channoo Lal, 1964 AWR 283 is of no assistance to the Petitioners because there the jurisdiction of the civil court was beheld in a case where declaration of Sirdari rights and permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the standing crop, was sought. The principle on which the learned Counsel for Petitioners seeks to rely is that it is not the nature of relief, but nature of the cause of action which determines the forum. That is the true position and in this case the cause of action is one for which claim could be made before the Civil Court.