JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 08.03.2017 passed in OS No.440/2016 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent-plaintiff field O.S.No.440/2016 before the trial Court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) That the Hon'ble Court be please to declare that the plaintiff being the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, who is a Government Servant, under the service of defendant No.3 to 4, entitled to get her name entered in the service register of defendant No.4, State Government.

(b) That, in case if the Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the name of the plaintiff is not incorporated in the service registers of the defendant No.1 the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 be directed to enter the name of the plaintiff in the service register maintained by them by issuing necessary directions by way of mandatory injunction.

It has been alleged in the suit that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2002 and out of their wedlock respondent No.1 gave birth to a son by name Abhay and they led happy married life for some years and thereafter, defendant No.1 started harassing and ill-treating her. He did not heed the advice of the elders. Subsequently, herself and her son were thrown out of the house. The defendant has contacted second marriage with one Asha and has given birth to female child. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed a petition in MC.No.1/2011 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed maintenance proceedings in Crl.Misc. No.17/2011. Therefore, she filed the said suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs against the defendant Nos. 1,3 and 4.

4. The defendant No.1 appeared in the said suit and filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. He also filed application under Order VII Rule 11(d) R/w. Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit is barred by law and accordingly, suit is not maintainable. He contends that the civil court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject matter of the suit involving service matters. He also contends that the plaintiff has no locus standi to seek such reliefs against him. Plaintiff filed objections on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) R/w. Section 151 of CPC.

5. The trial Court heard on I.A.No.1 filed by the defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(d) R/w. Section 151 of CPC and passed the impugned order thereby rejecting the application.

6. Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this revision petition on the grounds that the trial Court has committed serious error in law in rejecting the application holding that the suit is maintainable. The trial Court failed to consider that the plaintiff has sought for declaration to declare that she is entitled to enter her name in the service register of defendant No.1 by defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The plaintiff has to approach Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to seek the said remedies under Section 19 the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') and civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit under Section 15 of the Act.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

8. A short question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by Sections 15 and 28 of the Act.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 submitted that civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for granting such reliefs as sought by the plaintiff in the suit and that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by Sections 15 and 28 of the Act and she has to approach Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for seeking such reliefs. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be r