INDER Vs. GURDIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raising a question of jurisdiction has been made to this Court under Section 99 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. (Act XVI of 1887), hereinafter called the Act. Facts that led to the reference are not in controversy,

(2.) INDER claimed that he had worked as a Sanjhi (partner) in cultivation with the Defendant for some harvest but was not paid his share of 1/5th of produce from the land under cultivation. A suit for recovery of his share was initially filed by the Plaintiff on 30th May, 1968, in the Revenue Court (Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ambala City). A notice of the suit was given to the Defendant who in his written statement raised a preliminary objection that the suit did not lie in the Revenue Court. Reliance in this connection was placed by him on Section 77 of the Act it being pleaded that the case did not fall under Clause (k) of the first group referred to in Section 77(3). Section 77(3) gives a list of cases which can be instituted in, heard and determined by Revenue Courts only end no other Court can take cognizance of a dispute arising therein. The relevant extract from this section may be reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:

(3.) NO evidence was produced by the parties and the Civil Court relying upon a judgment of the Punjab Chief Court reported as Sunder Singh v. Kesar Singh, 80 P.R. 1904, which was subsequently followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bakhshish Singh v. Kartar Singh, 1956 P.L.R. 476, came to the conclusion that the suit was cognizable only by a Revenue Court. Here the counsel for the Plaintiff again conceded that the suit lay in the Revenue Court and prayed for return of the plaint to him for presentation to the latter Court. Instead of returning the plaint, the Civil Court had made the present reference to this Court it being of the view that the plaint could be returned if the suit had, in the first instance, been instituted in that Court. It took notice of the order of the Court of Assistant Collector passed on 30th October, 1968, whereby the said Court had already returned the plaint on the ground that the suit did not lie in that Court.