( 1 ) THE suit was listed today for hearing on the preliminary issue No. 5 in terms of Order dated 12. 03. 2007. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Order dated 12. 03. 2007 needs to be modified to the extent that it is only issues No. 2 and 4 which cannot be tried by the Civil Court (Collateral proceedings being pending before the Revenue Court) and not issue No. 3. Thus the submission is that in respect of issue Nos. 3 also, the civil Court would have jurisdiction. Learned counsel for defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contends that there is no need for modification of the order in view of the provisions of Section 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms act, 1954 ('dlr Act' for short ). The said provision reads as under:

"186. Procedure when question of title is raised- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 185, if in any suit or proceedings in Column 3 of Schedule I, a question is raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding any such question is directly and substantially in issue the court shall, unless the question has already been decided by a competent court, frame an issue on the question of the title and submit the record to the competent civil court for the decision of that issue only. Explanation - A plea regarding the title to the land which is clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court shall not be deemed to raise a question regarding the title to the land within the meaning of this Section.

(2) The civil court, after re-framing the issue, if necessary shall decide such issue only and return the record together with its finding thereon to the revenue court which submitted it.

(3) The revenue court shall then proceed to decide the suit, accepting the finding of the civil court on the issue referred to it.

(4) An appeal from a decree of a revenue court in a suit or proceeding in which an issue regarding title has been decided by a civil court under sub section (2) shall lie to the civil court which having regard to the valuation of the suit has jurisdiction to her appeal from the court to which the issue of title has been referred. "

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in hatti v. Sunder Singh; 1970 (2) SCC 841 puts the matter at rest in view of what has been observed in para 7 of the said judgment. The same is re-produced hereinunder:

"the High Court, in this connection, referred to Section 186 of the Act under which any question raised regarding the titleof any party to the land which is the subject matter of a s uit or proceeding under the First Schedule has to be referred by the revenue Court to the competent Civil Court for decision after framing an issue on that question. Inference was sought to be drawn from this provision that questions of title could be competently agitated by a suit in the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. It appears to us that there is no justification for drawing such an inference. On the contrary, Section 186 envisages that questions of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and, only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a Revenue Court, an issue will be framed and referred to the Civil Court. Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to decided the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court. This clearly implies that, if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under Item 4 of schedule I of the Act, that question will then be referred by the revenue Assistant to the Civil Court; but a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari right cannot directly approach the Civil Court. The Act is a compl