( 1 ) THE plaintiff-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 instituted Title Suit No. 161 of 1965 for ejectment. In December, 1977, the plaintiffs applied for local inspection of the land in question. At that stage the petitioner-defendant No. 3 put in an application to decide the preliminary "point regarding the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. The prayer was turned down. Hence this revisional application.

( 2 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notice of ejectment was served directing the defendant to vacate the premises in question on the expiry of the 30th June, 1965. The averment was that the tenancy was according to English calendar But, in fact, the tenancy in favour of the defendant's predecessor-in-interest commenced from the 12th November, 1963. Hence the suit for ejectment was not maintainable he-cause on the face of the plaint the notice was invalid in law. In order to support that contention reference has been made to the Full Bench case of Gurudas Biswas v. Charu Panna Seat in. It has been stated in that case that the question of notice is in essence a point of jurisdiction and the court has HO jurisdiction to entertain the s