( 1 ) BY this revision, petitioner-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 22-4-1985 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, at Jamnagar, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1984. Thus, the State has invoked the provisions of Sec. 115 of this Code of Civil Procedure ("code" for short hereinafter ). * against the order passed by the Assistant Judge, Jamnagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1984 whereby the Judge confirmed the order passed by the trial Court in R. C. S. No. 914 of 1983.

( 2 ) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader Shri D. N. Trivedi appeared for the petitioner-State. Learned Advocate Shri. M. N. Popat for learned Advocate mrs. M. C. Thakkar, appeared for the respondent.

( 3 ) THE impugned order is challenged on diverse grounds. However, one of the contentions, pertaining to the competence and jurisdiction of the Court, being important and going to the root of the matter, is examined and considered first. Mr. Trivedi, learned A. G. P. for the State, seriously contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction and, therefore, the passing of interim order by the trial Court and then confirming by the appellate Court would be totally invalid and illegal. Thus, it brings into the focus as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction in such matters or not.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the main above important contention, a resume of material facts giving birth to the present revision. may be, narrated at this juncture.

( 5 ) THE respondent before this Court in this revision is the original plaintiff, whereas, the petitioner in this revision is the original defendant. The plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 914 of 1983 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.), at Jamnagar, for declaration that the defendant has no right to seize 100 gunny bags of Wheat and for its return. The plaintiff also claimed the relief of injunction. The contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that the Collector, jamnagar, had illegally ordered confiscation of 100 gunny bags of Wheat. One truck loaded with 100 gunny bags of Wheat of the plaintiff was seized on 15-3-1983 and thereafter the said material was confiscated to the State by the collector of Jamnagar by exercising his powers under Sec. 6 (A) of the Essential commodities Act ("act" for short hereinafter ). Being aggrieved by the confiscation of the essential commodity like 100 gunny bags of Wheat, the plaintiff filed the above suit.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff also filed an application for interlocutory injunction under order 39 Rule 1-2 of the Code and Sec. 151 of the Code alongwith the suit on 30-9-1983. After hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Jamnagar, found that the Wheat, being, perishable item and in order to protect the interest of both the parties, he was pleased to direct the defendant-State to return the confiscated Wheat on payment of Rs. 10,000/ - by the plaintiff in the Court. Being aggrieved by the said interim order, the original defendant-State preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1984 under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code in the District Court, at Jamnagar. After hearing both the parties, the learned Assistant Judge, Jamnagar, was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 22-4-1985. Being dissastified by the said judgment and order of the District Court, the original defendant/appellant in that appeal, has come up before this Court in this revision, assailing the said judgment and order. That is how this revision under Sec. 115 of the code has come up for determination.

( 7 ) THE contention raised by the learned A. G. P. Mr. Trivedi, with regard to the maintainability of the suit, goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, it is taken up first. It may be noted at this stage that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature under Sec. 9 of the Code except suits of which that cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred under the provisions of law. Thus, all disputes of civil nature are triable by the Civil Cou