NUR ISLAM AND OTHERS Vs. TROILOKHYA NATH HAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7. 4.88 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 16 of 1980 on decision of Issue No. 3 in the suit.

(2.) I have heard Mr. N. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the opposite party. The defendants of the said title suit are the petitioners herein. The opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his right, title and interest on the suit land and also for confirmation of possession of the suit land. The suit was contested by the petitioners - defendants by filing written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. Along with other grounds of contest the defendants pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 66 of Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. In other words the defendants pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present nature of the suit of the plaintiff. On various grounds in the pleadings of both the parties several issues were struck by the learned trial Court out of which Issue No. 3 was relevant issue in respect of which the impugned order has been rendered. Issue No. 3 runs as follows :

(3.) The contention of Mr. N. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the status of the tenant on the basis of the valid khatian issued under the provisions of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 can be decided by the revenue Court if any dispute is raised by the landlord. The civil Court cannot decide as to the correctness of the issuance of khatian to a tenant by revenue authority. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, section 66 (c) of the Act which has taken away the jurisdiction of the civil Court immediately comes into play. Likewise, section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure also creates a bar in the present suit as the jurisdiction of the civil Court is taken away by express provision as laid down under section 66 of the Act. In the above context the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the learned trial Court is on misinterpretation of relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act as well as the provisions of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has committed a jurisdictional error. It is true that if there is any jurisdictional error to try any matter, certainly this Court shall interfere in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit of the plaintiff. Sec. 66 of the Act runs as follows:-