PANNA Vs. INDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANNA, Sua, Teja, sons of Pura, Goma and PANNA, son of Bhura filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of some agricultural properties in the court of the Sub-Judge First Class, Beawar on 26. 9. 1956. Subsequently, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act having come into force, and the civil court was of the opinion that the suit was exclusively triable by a revenue court and transferred it to the court of the Asstt. Collector, Beawar. The S. D. O. , Beawar in whose court the case came on transfer, did not agree with the opinion expressed by the civil court and thought that the case was not exclusively triable by a revenue court, but deserves to be tried by a civil court. He, therefore, sent the case to the Collector, Beawar for reference to the Hon'ble High Court, as under the law, the subordinate courts have to approach the High Court for reference after obtaining sanction of the Collector. The Collector did not think it proper to make a reference to the High Court, but decided himself that the suit was to be tried by a civil court. He accordingly transferred the case back to the civil court. The Civil Judge, vide his order dated 28th of January, 1959, has made the present reference.

(2.) THE Civil Judge has in the first instance found some fault with the proceedings of the Collector in omitting to make a reference to the High Court and sending the case direct to the civil court. Next, he has expressed an opinion that the suit being for possession by way of pre-emption of agricultural properties is covered by sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. So far as the Civil Judge's criticism of the action of the Collector is concerned, I am of the opinion that it appears to be correct. When a civil court had transferred a case to a revenue court on account of its finding as to the lack of civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit, the revenue court disagreeing with the finding of the civil court, must make a reference , to the High Court and should not have sent the case back to the civil court. Nothing however now turns upon this irregularity. THE case is now before this Court and a decision has to be taken whether it is a case triable by a revenue court or a civil court. It is of course expected that both civil and revenue courts will not in future decide themselves the question regarding conflict of jurisdiction, but would make appropriate references to this Court and get the decision of this Court.