GORDHAN DASS Vs. SANJHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the Plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by the appellate Court by its decree of December 1, 1966 on the ground that under Section 77(3)(n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, it was not cognizable by a civil Court but by a revenue Court, it being a suit for recovery of the value of produce of agricultural land.

(2.) THE Plaintiff had alleged that the Defendant, who is Respondent here, was his tenant and had not given him the produce of the land from Kharif 1962 to Kharif 1963, and he claimed Rs. 879 as the price of the produce for that period. It was undenied that the Defendant was evicted from the land on March 22, 1964. The suit by the Plaintiff was instituted on January 5, 1965, to recover the equivalent of kind rent not paid by the Defendant during the currency of the tenancy. An objection was raised by the Defendant that because of Section 77(3)(n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act the suit was not cognizable by a civil Court The trial Court did not accept this and proceeded to decree the suit of the Plaintiff having found the claim on merits established against the Defendant On appeal the learned District Judge is of the opinion that tills is a suit covered by Section 77(3)(n) of the Act and hence barred from the cognizance of a civil Court. So he has dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff.

(3.) HOWEVER , it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that even so the learned Judge in the appellate Court was in error in dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff because if the suit Is cognizable under Section 77(3)(n) by a revenue Court, then under proviso (i) to Sub -section (3) of Section 77, the duty of the civil Court was to "ensure upon the plaint the nature of the matter for decision and the particulars required by Order 7, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure and return the plaint for presentation to Collector" and this is the procedure that the Judge in the appellate Court was bound to follow. To this apparently there cannot be an answer on the side of the Defendant. So, this revision application is partly accepted in that while the main decision of the learned District Judge is maintained, his decree dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff is set aside and a direction is given to him now to proceed with the matter according the proviso (i) to Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. There is no order in regard to costs in this revision application.