The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is confined to cases covered by Section 9A of the Excise Act, and the party seeking to oust jurisdiction must establish their contention.

1. - The defendants (petitioners) have preferred this civil revision petition challenging the order dated 3.11.1999 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Hindaun City in Civil Suit No. 117/1999, whereby he dismissed an application of the defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code.

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are that M/s. Kalawati Hari Singh Chaudhary and party carrying in business of country and foreign wine & beer under the contract for the year 1999-2000 sanctioned by the Excise Department of Govt. of Rajasthan for Hindaun Todabhim group of IMFL had instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction alongwith T.I. application in respect of two liquor shops situated one at village Gehroli, Todabhim Balaji Road and another at Kherali Crossing. Permanent injunction had been sought for restraining the defendants (Excise Authorities) from: (1) cancelling the contracts sanctioned for aforesaid two shops of Gehroli & Kherali Crossing in Todabhim Tehsil; (2) dispossessing them forcefully out of these two sanctioned liquor shops or closing those shops and further (3) allowing the plaintiffs to peacefully carry on their liquor business without any interruption or hindrances in accordance with terms & conditions of liquor contracts so as to avoid from causing any loss to them. The dispute arose when the defendant No. 1 (District Excise Officer Sawaimadhopur) issued notice dated 22.10.1999 for change of the sanctioned location of liquor shops of Gehroli and Kherali Crossing. Upon service of the notices issued on the suit and T.I. application, the defendants moved an application under Section 9 as also Order 7 Rule 11 (d) Civil Procedure Code praying therein that the suit be dismissed on the sole ground that in the light of Section 9-B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short "the Act"), so also the condition Nos. 4.1, 4.2 & 8.3 of the liquor contract, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the suit. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the plaintiffs contesting the objection raised for jurisdiction of the Civil Court. After hearing both the parties the learned trial Court by its order impugned herein, has dismissed the applications dated 30.10.1999 moved in suit and TI application. Hence this revision petition.

3. Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners (Excise Department) contended that the injunction has been sought by the plaintiffs against order/notice issued by the defendants in exercise of their powers vested under the Excise Act and only remedy against it is provided under the Act itself but a civil suit is barred by virtue of Section 9-B thereof thereby civil court has no jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 9 Civil Procedure Code so also Order 7 Rule 11 (d) QPC which places a specific bar to entertain and try civil suit by the civil court for any injunction against the orders of the competent authority because the cognizance against which is expressly or implied barred and an alternative remedy is available under the Act.

4. Shri Mathur placed reliance upon the decisions reported in : State of Rajasthan v. Vimlesh Harsh 1998(2) RLR 322 . Tilam Sangh Sriganganagar v. K.P. Sharma 1998(1) RLR 503 . Ajmer Kumar v. Punjab State, ( AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 12) , Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar, (1997 (5) SCC 120) and R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., (1997(5) SCC 125) .

5. Contrarily, Shri R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) contended that Section 9-B of the Act cannot be read in isolation inasmuch as the excise department has acted malafidely under the pressure of other wine groups at whose instance they are adamant to change the location of the sanctioned shop ignoring the provisions of Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956. Shri Garg also contended that the grievance raised in the plaint at para 7 do no