LALA GANESH RAI Vs. MUSAMMAT FAIZAN; ABDUL SUBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, opposite party, for profits against a lambardar. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the defendant was a trespasser in possession and the plaintiff could not claim profits from him in a Revenue Court, He, thereupon, passed a curious order that the suit be dismissed with costs, and in order to prevent any hardship the plaint is to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff thereupon went in appeal to the District Judge, who, after considering the questions raised before him, tame to the conclusion that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Courts and remanded the case to that Court for trial on the merits. The defendant lambardar comes up here in revision. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party that the application in revision is incompetent. He has referred me to a large number of cases, including Thakur Dumber Singh V/s. Sri Kithun Das 2 Ind. Cas. 377 : 31 A. 445 : 6 A.L.J. 552, Jamna Prasad V/s. Karan Singh 46 Ind. Cas. 338 : 41 A. 28 : 16 A.L.J. 869, Mohammad Ehtisham Ali V/s. Lal Singh 49 Ind. Cas. 362 : 41 A. 226 : 17 A.L.J. 123 and Gaj Kumar Chander V/s. Salamat Ali 52 Ind. Cas. 756 : 17 A.L.J. 1057 : 42 A. 885 1 U.P.L.R. (A.) 142. The argument advanced by the Counsel for the opposite party is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application in revision. There tan be no doubt that having regard to the express provisions of the Tenancy Act, the only Court which can entertain applications for revision is the Board of Revenue and there is no pre vision in the Tenancy Act under which this Court can exercise re visional powers. It is, however, said by Mr. Iqbal Ahmad in reply that the functions of the Civil Courts for interference only arise when a suit is, as a matter of fact, covered by the provisions of Section 167 of the Tenancy Act. His contention is that as the Tenancy Act gives no appeal from orders such as returning plaints for presentation to the proper Courts, etc., therefore, the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before him, and his order being without jurisdiction, this Court can set it aside in revision. The difficulty in which I am placed is this. Two wrongs do not make aright, and I find that this Court having no revisional powers in Revenue cases, I have not the power to interfere. I find further that in the present case no injustice has been done to either of the parties. The mere fact that the suit will be tried by the Revenue Courts does in no way injure the defendant lambardar. He has his right of appeal to the Civil Courts and if the decision of the first Court is not warranted by law, he has his remedy by such an appeal. Under these circumstances decline to interfere in revision and dismiss this application with costs.