S.N. JHA, J.

This civil revision by the defendant arises from an order by which the plaintiff's suit has been held to be maintainable and the petition filed by the defendant in that regard has been rejected.

2. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 141 of 1992 in the court of 2nd Munsif , Sasaram, for declaration that they are occupancy Raiyats of the lands described in Schedules A to D to the plaint and for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from making interference with their peaceful possession. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the lands as Sikmidars since about 1960. With the passage of time, after 12 years, they have acquired occupancy right as under Raiyat. However, the defendant in collusion with certain undesirable elements has been holding out threats to dispossess them from the lands. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant-petitioner filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the suit is barred under Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short' the Act'). It is said that the plaintiffs had filed petitions under section 48D of the Act vide case Nos. 7, 8, 17 and 18 of 1992-93 before the Anchal Adhikari, Kargahar, which were rejected. According to the petitioner, after the claim was rejected by the Anchal A dhikari, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The petitioner filed application to dismiss the suit as not maintainable on the aforesaid ground. The application has been rejected by the impugned order.

4. The point for consideration is weather the suit is barred by the provisions of Bihar Tenancy Act or the principle of res judicata.

5. Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provision of section 48E of the Act and submitted that where the statute creates right and also provides the remedy for enforcement of such right it is that remedy alone, to the exclusion of the remedy under the general law, which can be availed of. Since the plaintiffs claim to be under raiyats in occupation of the land the remedy available to them was/is to file application for prevention of threatened ejectment under sec.48E of the Act and not to file suit for injunction for the same relief.

6. Section 48 E (1) of the Act runs as follows –

"If an under raiyat is threatened with unlawful ejectment from his tenancy or any portion thereof by his landlord or if there is a dispute between them over the possession of land, crop or produce thereof either on the ground of non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them or otherwise or if any under raiyat is or has been ejected from his tenancy or any portion thereof within twelve years before the commencement of proceedings under this section in contravention of the provisions of section 89 the Collector may, of his own motion or on application made in this behalf by under raiyat or for settlement of the said dispute or for restoration to possession under raiyat unlawfully ejected from his tenancy or portion thereof."

It is true that section 48 E provides for a complete remedy for prevention of threatened ejectment of under raiyat and restoration of possession to under raiyat unlawfully ejected but there is nothing to indicate the ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that subject to the provisions contained in the code, the courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of the civil nature except the suit of which cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly. Law is well settled that where statute creates a right and also provides the remedy and forum for enforcement of that right, it is that remedy alone which can be availed of. To that extent the submission of the counsel is well-founded. It +cannot however be said that section 48E has created a new right. Any person under the general law of the land can file a suit for declaration of his status as an under raiyat and seek injunction. In the present case, the suit has been file