( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8th January, 1990 passed by Shri HP. Sharma, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi wheteby the order of the learned Sub Judge dated 12th September, 1989 directing maintenance of status quo of the property in dispute has been reversed.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts necessary for determining the point in controversy between the parties are these. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that the petitioner is the sole heir and successor of Shri Om Prakash, son of late Shri Ram Sarup Saini of village Bijwasan, Delhi, having succeeded to his rights, title and interests in the land in dispute. He also claimed a decree tor permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the petitioner s right, title and interest therein at any time.

( 3 ) THE suit of the plaintiff-petitioner is founded on the claim that he is the male lineal descendant of late Shri Gurdayal. He is his surviving son and Shri Om Parkash was the son of the real brother of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was a nearest natural successor of his lands and estate in comparison to the other respondents. Shri Om Parkash, who admittedly has been declared as a Bhoomidar of the land in dispute has not been heard for the last more than seven years since the year 1980 and, therefore, he is presumed to have died. Respondents 2 to 4 have not opposed the case of the petitioner. Respondent No. I has, however, contested the suit and has claimed succession to the land in dispute by virtue of an adoption deed dated 18. 1. 1980-which has been disputed by the petitioner.

( 4 ) IN an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff. the learned Sub Judge vide judgment dated 12th September, 1989 allowed the application and directed maintenance of status quo of the land in dispute. Being aggrieved of this order of the learned Sub Judge allowing the application for injunction, the respondent No 1-Jai Prakash-filed an appeal before the learned Senior Sub Judge. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the injunction passed by the trial court was vacated on the ground that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and, therefore there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED against the order of the appellate court. , the plaintiff- petitioner filed this revision petition.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the pstitioner submitted that the jurisdiction of the civil court in the facts and circumstances of the present case was not barred whereas learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand. contended that the jurisdiction of the civil court was clearly barred in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that in the present case the controversy revolves on the question of succession to the land in dispute left by Shri Om Parkash. Declaration of bhoomidari rights of Shri Om Parkash is not the question in dispute. In these circumstances the question that arises for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred or not. Section 185 (1) of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter of declaration of bhoomidari rights may be reported below :- "185 (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule 1 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. "

( 8 ) FROM the perusal of the above ssction it is clear that this saves only those cases which are mentioned in column 7 of Schedule 1 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Thus, the scope of Section 185 is confined to the specific matters enumerated in Sc