Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. : - The appellant, the Bank of Baroda, agreed through its Banswara Branch to sanction a demand loan facility in the sum of Rs. 36,000/- in favour of respondent 1. In consideration thereof, respondent 1 executed a demand promissory note in favour of the Rank on June 18, 1973. He also executed a bond hypothecating the standing crop of his lands situated at Khandu and Surjipada in Rajasthan. Respondents 2 and 3 are the guarantors for the repayment of the loan. In order to further secure the repayment of the loan, respondent 1 executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of the Bank, in respect of the lands at Khandu and Surjipada.

2. The respondents having failed to repay the loan, the appellant filed against them a suit in the court of the learned District Judge, Banswara, for recovering a sum of Rs. 52,000/-odd which was due on the loan transaction. Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the claim in the suit was essentially one for enforcing the mortgage executed by them in favour of the Bank and, therefore, the Revenue court had the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit, by reason of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 3 of 1955, (hereinafter called "the Act"). That objection was overruled by the learned District Judge but, in a civil revision application filed by the respondents, the High Court upheld it. According to the High Court, "the execution of the mortgage deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of his tenancy rights in agricultural land also forms the essential part of the cause of action of the plaintiff and as suck the suit is triable by a revenue court." The correctness of this view is questioned by the plaintiff in this appeal by special leave.

3. Section 207 of the Act reads thus :

"207. Suit and applications cognizable by revenue court only.- (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court.

(2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.

Explanation :- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted."

4. Section 256 of the Act, which is complementary to section 207, reads thus :

"256. Bar to jurisdiction of civil courts :-

(1) save as otherwise provided specifically by or under this Act, no suit or proceeding shall lie in any civil court with respect to any matter arising under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, for which a remedy by way of suit, application, appeal or otherwise is provided therein.

(2) Save as aforesaid, no order passed by the State Government or by any revenue court or officer in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be liable to be questioned in any civil court.

5. A combined reading of these two sections would show that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred only in respect of suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule to the Act and in respect of suits or applications based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of a suit or application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule. The civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding with respect to any matter arising under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, provided that a remedy by way of a suit, application or appeal or otherwise is provided in the Act.

6. The legal position on the question of jurisdiction which is stated above requires examination of the various entries in the Third Schedule. That