( 1 ) ). . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 2 ) THE question posed is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant an interim order as regards possession in relation to agricultural lands is ousted by reason of clause (nb) of sec. 70 read with sec. 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948 here inafter called the Act.

( 3 ) CLAUSE (nb) was introduced in sec. 70 of the Act by Gujarat Act V of 1973. Before the introduction of the said provision it was well settled for more than 7 or 8 years that a Civil Court had jurisdiction to pass appropriate interim orders in pending suits as regards possession even in cases where one of the parties claimed to be a tenant. This point was urged at length before J. B. Mehta J. in C. R. A. No. 273 of 1967 (Parmar Misrikhan v. Damaji Virji Gaman) and it was decided therein that a Civil Court had undoubted jurisdiction to pass appropriate interim orders as regards possession notwithstanding the fact that one of the parties to the suit claimed to be a tenant. It was argued before J. B. Mehta J. that having regard to the observations made by M. R. Mody J. in Mohan Moti v. Indravadan 4 G. L. R. 387 at page 394 the Civil