Suits for ejectment of trespassers in respect of agricultural land are triable exclusively by a revenue court under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, irrespective of whether the defendant sets up his own proprietary title or his possession as a tenant.

D. S. DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THESE are sixteen applications in revision by the same defendant against whom sixteen plaintiffs have brought separate suits for possession of agricultural lands in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara. The facts of these cases are quite similar and since only one common question of law is involved in all of them, they are disposed of together.

( 2 ) EACH one of the plaintiff non-petitioner has averred in his plaint that he was in possession of a particular plot of agricultural land in village Gadarmala (which is also known as Bhopalgarh) from the time of his ancestors. Each one has given a description of his field in dispute and it need not be mentioned here. It has been averred by all the plaintiffs that the defendant started making unlawful encroachment on their fields in the month of Kartik Samwat 2010 and ultimately in the month of Kartik Samwat 2011, he unlawfully ploughed their fields with a tractor. This led to a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the police, Bhilwara started proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against both the parties. The Magistrate attached the fields in dispute pending the enquiry and later on restored their possession to the defendant. It was asserted that the fields in dispute were their "bapi" and they were in their possession from the time of their ancestors and, therefore, each one of the plaintiffs prayed for a decree against the defendant directing him to restore the possession of the disputed field to him.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the plaintiffs claims and one of his objection in each case was that the suit was triable exclusively by the Revenue court and so the Civil court had no jurisdiction to try the same. This objection was turned down by the trial court on the ground that each suit was based on title and, therefore, it had jurisdiction to entertain and try it. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of this order passed by the trial court in each case. It would thus appear that the only point for determination in each one of the above noted cases before this court is "whether the suit is triable exclusively by a Revenue Court and, therefore, the Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the same?"

( 4 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the non-petitioners to the effect that the revision application does not lie in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Swaroop Narain v. Gopinath, ILR (1. 953) Raj 483: (AIR 1953 Raj 137 ). In that case, it was decided that where it is open to a party to raise a ground of appeal in High Court under Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code from the final decree or order with respect to any order which has been passed during the pendency of the case it should be held that an appeal in that case lies to the High Court within the meaning of the term "in which no appeal lies thereto" appearing in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The result is that revision would not be competent against an order passed during the pendency of suit or proceeding if such order can be challenged in High Court under Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code in first or second appeal (to High Court) from the final decision of the suit or the proceedings. It is only when the order in question cannot be challenged in High Court whether in first or second appeal or even by way of a ground under Section 105 in appeal from the final decision of the case that it can be said that no appeal lies to the High Court and it should, therefore, exercise its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the basis of the above views it has been urged by learned counsel for the non-petitioners that the question regarding jurisdiction of the civil court can be agitated before this Court in second appeal by virtue of Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the present revision applications are incompetent. I have given due c