MAH ANT GOPIDASS Vs. RAMKRISHNA PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, bv the defendants, is directed against an interlocutory order dated 6th October I960, passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai, upholding the jurisdiction 'of the Court to try the suit.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision may be shortly stated. THE laintiffs have brought a suit for declaration that the defendants have no right of way, through their bhumiswami land bearing Khasra No. 41, and for consequential injunction to restrain them from exercising any such right by virtue of the order passed by the revenue Courts under section 131 (1) of the Madhya 'C.R. No. 745 of 1966 decided on 25-1-1968 (Jabalpur) for revision of the order passed by C, P. Dubeyi 3rd C. J., Class II, Khurai, on 6-10-1966 in C. S. No. 48-A of 1966. D/H, Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (XX of 1959), in their favour. THE defendants pleaded amongst other grounds, that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) THE argument appears to be plausible, but a deeper scrutiny reveals a fallacy. Under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, a civil Court can always entertain a suit of civil nature except a suit the cognisance of which is expressly or impliedly barred. It is well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil Court must be strictly construed. THE question really is, whether a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction which, necessarily, is a suit based on title, is either expressly or by necessary implication barred under the provisions of the Act.