The Civil Court is still competent to decide all other questions involved in a suit, despite being debarred from deciding the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not under section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

Chittatosh Mookherji, J.

1. The petitioner plaintiff has instituted a suit against the opposite party in the First Court of Munsif at Serampore, inter alia, for certain declaration and consequential reliefs. The said suit is pending. The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant/opposite party from interfering with the plaintiff's alleged possession of the suit property was rejected by the learned Munsif, First Court, Serampore. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Munsif refusing temporary injunction preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. The learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Hooghly, dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order of the learned Munsif refusing injunction. The only reason given by the learned Subordinate Judge was that in the instant case section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was attracted and, therefore, the question whether the defendant/opposite party is a bargadar or not should be referred to the Officers and/or authorities under section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. According to the learned Subordinate Judge even a prima facie finding by the civil court in the temporary injunction matter might prejudice the mind of the authority who might have to decide the said question under the law. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate court has obtained the present Rule.

2. In my view, the learned Subordinate Judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law by not disposing of the Miscellaneous Appeal in question in accordance with law. At the date the appeal was disposed of no reference under section 21(3) had been yet made by the Trial Court. Secondly, I have pointed out in my judgment in Chapalabala Adhikary vs. Monoranjan Das & other, 1975 (2) CLJ 447, at page 452 that the court has been now debarred under section 21(3) from deciding the question whether a person is a bargadar or not. But the said ouster of jurisdiction is partial and the court is still competent to decide all other questions involved in a suit. Secondly, the lower appellate court misdirected itself with regard to the scope of an appeal arising from an order refusing temporary injunction. At this stage no determination of any of issues involved in this suit is to be made. The court in hearing an application for temporary injunction and the appeal arising therefrom is to consider only the prima facie case of the parties, balance of convenience & inconvenience, question of irreparable injury etc. Since at this stage, the court will not make adjudication of the rights of the parties. I do not agree that disposal of the temporary injunction matter would prejudice proceedings, if any, under section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In fact, Section 21(3) read with section 18(2) does not provide for passing of interlocutory orders. Therefore, the Civil Court is at liberty to hear the application for interim orders notwithstanding that a reference under section 21(3) may be contemplated. It may be also pointed out that in case a reference under section 21(3) is made and the authorities under chapter III determine the said question and returns the same to the Civil Court may at its discretion modify and/or pass further orders in respect of the temporary injunction matter. But law does not contemplate that merely because there might be a reference under section 21(3), the Civil Court shall not have any jurisdiction even to make an order of temporary injunction even if the conditions for passing such an interlocutory order be fulfilled. But I may at once add that in the instant case I have not considered whether or not the application for temporary injunction applied for by the plaintiff should be granted or not. The lower appellate court will address itself to the said question while again hearing the appeal in question. I also make it clear that I am not deciding at this stage whether or not