1. - This is defendants' revision against the appellate order holding that the suit is cognizable by a civil court. The trial court had upheld the defendants' objection that the suit can be tried only by a revenue court, but that view has been reversed in appeal by the District Court. Hence this revision by the defendants.

2. Admittedly, the defendants' objection to the cognizance of the suit by a civil court is to be decided at this stage only on the basis of the plaint averments, since the trial has not proceeded further. Reading the plaint as a whole, the appellate court has rightly reached the conclusion that the suit is cognizable by a civil court and is not barred by virtue of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

3. The contention of the learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners is that the reliefs claimed in the suit can be granted by a revenue court under Section 91 and 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore its cognizance by a civil court is barred by virtue of Section 207 read with the corresponding entries in the third schedule to the Act. I am unable to accept this contention. A bare perusal of Sections 91 and 92-A of the Act is suffic