VUPPULURI ATCHAYYA; VOPPULURI ATCHAYYA; VEMPATI CHINA RAMAYYA Vs. KANCHUMARTI VENKATA SEETARAMA CHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions have arisen out of suits in ejectment brought by the same plaintiff who comes under the definition of a landlord under the Estates Land Act against his tenants. The Court of 1st instance (the District Munsif s Court of Tanuku) was of opinion that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits and that under the Estates Land Act, the plaintiff ought to have brought the suits in a Revenue Court. The learned Munsif, therefore, ordered the plaints to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.

(2.) On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Ellore held that under the saving clause to Section 153 of the Estates Land Act, the suits were cognizable by Civil Court. He set aside the District Munsif s orders and directed the District Munsif to take back the plaints, to restore the suits to his file and dispose of them according to law.

(3.) These Civil revision petitions have been filed praying for the reversal of the learned Subordinate Judge s orders in the suits. Under Order XLIII, Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, an appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge s Court from the District Munsif s order returning the plaint in each suit. Under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, Clause 2, a second appeal is prohibited from orders so passed in appeal. Hence, the defendants have come before us by way of Civil revision petitions under Section 115 of the new Civil Procedure Code (which corresponds to the old Section 622).