MOHANLAL Vs. RAMPRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT/applicants have directed this revision against the order dated 6-2-2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Mandsaur in C. S. No. 60-A/96 whereby a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction of the Trial Court is decided in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief necessary for the disposal of this revision are :-- that in Village Kuchdod, District Mandsaur some agricultural lands are recorded in the name of respondent No. I/plaintiff as "bhumiswami" rights and the adjacent lands are recorded in the name of present applicants as "bhumiswami". As per plaintiffs' allegation non-applicant/plaintiffs applied for measurement and installation of boundary marks of the lands recorded in his name in the Court of the Tehsildar concerned under Section 129 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. It is stated that because of the non-cooperation of the applicants the petition of the respondent/plaintiffs for installation of the boundary marks is pending in the Court of Tehsildar since long. As such, suit was filed before the Trial Court for issuance of injunction in the mandatory form directing the applicants as also the revenue officer of the respondent-State for disposal of the application filed by respondent/plaintiffs before the Tehsildar under Section 129 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. In the written statement the applicant/defendants have taken objection that in view of the provisions of Section 257 (g) of the Code and the reliefs claimed in the suit, the plaintiffs' suit is not within the competence of the Civil Court alongwith other objections. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction of the Court and alter considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order holding that in view of the Section 9 of the CPC the Trial Court (Civil Court) has jurisdiction to try the suit as filed by the respondent/plaintiffs. Aggrieved the applicants have filed this revision.

(3.) I have heard Shri P. K. Saxena, Sr. Counsel with Shri Rawka, for the petitioner and Shri V. P. Saraf, learned Counsel for the respondent.