The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil jurisdiction can be barred under specific provisions of a special act, and the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :-

1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 16/10/96 passed in Civil Suit No. 102-A/87 by the Trial Court.

2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff namely Bholaram (since deceased and represented through Legal Representatives - respondent No. 1 to 9 herein) filed a Civil Suit for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 15/6/ 74, executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1, be declared null and void and he be declared the owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 488 area 8.78 acres. The plaint allegations are that the plaintiff was a landless person and this sale-deed was executed by him for obtaining loan of Rs. 3000/- from defendant No. 1 and in fact, it was orally agreed between them that the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the aforesaid document cancelled by a subsequent deed on repayment of loan amount by him on certain conditions as its owner. In nutshell, the plaintiff pleaded that, in fact, the said document was not a document of transfer of title but the same was a document executed for the security of loan.

3. The defendants filed an objection under Order 7 Rule II CPC saying that under the provisions of M.P. (C. G.) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, (Act No. 3 of 1977 hereinafter referred to as Act). the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit would be barred by Law and the plaint is liable to be rejected. This contention was overruled by the Trial Court vide order dated 13/10/1987 holding that the suit was filed for declaration of ownership and it would not be barred under the aforesaid provisions of Law.

4. It appears that against the aforesaid order, passed by the Trial Court, the defendants preferred a Civil Revision vide No. 3/1988 before the Third Additional District Judge, Durg, who disposed of this Revision expressing views in favour of the defendants, however inspite of rejection of plaint, he directed that the plaintiff should go before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act and the suit before the Civil Court shall remain stayed in this period and the Civil Court shall proceed further as per the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In fact, the said Court, even after observing that the matter is governed by the provisions of the said Act did not pass an order of rejection of thc plaint and passed the order in aforesaid manner. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, but his application was dismissed and ultimately, as stated by learned counsel for the applicants, an appeal filed before the Collector was also dismissed. The copy of the order of Sub-Divisional Officer has been filed as Annexure A-F. When the matter was dismissed before the Revenue Court, the defendants again filed an application under Section 151 CPC saying that since the matter has been decided by the Revenue Court, now the plaint should be rejected as according to the defendants and also according to the earlier order passed in Civil Revision, the plaint appears to be barred by the Special Act and there is no proprietary in proceeding with such plaint This application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 16/1 0/ 1996. It is against this order, passed by the Trial Court the applicants/defendants have filed this Civil Revision.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that as per the provisions of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, there is bar of civil jurisdiction, therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule II (d) CPC, the plaint should be rejected. He takes me to the various provisions of the said Act.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents argues that the present is a simple suit for declaration of title, therefore, the provisions of the said Act are not attracted and the T