S.K. MAL LODHA, J.— These two revisions before me arise out of a common appellate-order dated September 11, 1980 of the Civil Judge, Bikaner. As the questions involved are common and as they were heard together, I consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order.

2. Civil Original Suit No. 82 of 1980: Chunniram vs. Nanak Ram and others was instituted in the court of Munsif, Bikaner on March 17, 1980. The suit is for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction and demolition. Along with the plaint, an application under O.XXXIX, rr. 1 and 2 and s. 151, C.P.C. was filed. The learned Munsif, by his order dated August 28. 1980 issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from not constructing the houses and Bares on field No. 458 situate in village Lalamdesar, tehsil Bikaner, of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, Appeal No. 37 of 1980 was filed by the defendants Nanakram and others.

3. Civil Original Suit No. 337 of 1980; Chunniram vs. the State and others was instituted on July 24, 1980 in the court of Munsif, Bikaner for declaring that the orders dated April 11, 1980 and July 7, 1980 are illegal, ineffective, void and liable to be set aside and perpetual injunction. An application under O. XXXIX, rr. 1 and 2 and s. 151, C.P.C. was also filed. The learned Munsif, Bikaner, by his order dated August 28, 1980, issued a temporary injunction directing the defendants not to establish school in the building, which is being constructed on the plaintiffs field. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36/80 was preferred against the aforesaid order. The learned Civil Judge. Bikaner, by a common order dated September 11, 1980. accepted both the aforesaid appeals and set aside such of the two orders dated August 28, 1980.

4. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 324 of 1980: Chunniram vs. State and others and on September 19, 1980. Aggrieved against the order passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 1980 dated September 11, 1980. S.B. Civil Revision No. 360 of 1980: Chunniram vs. Nanakram and others was filed on October 3, 1980.

5. Record of Civil Original Suit No 337 of 1980 and that of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 1980 have been received in S.B. Civil Revision No.324 of l980. In S.B. Civil Revision No 360 of 1980, learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 Ramsukh. has filed the copy of the plaint dated April 17, 1980 in Civil Original Suit No. 82 of 1980.

6. Learned Civil Judge, Bikaner held that the two suits instituted by the petitioner are prima facie cognizable by a revenue court and that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear them. He set aside the orders of temporary injunction, which were passed by the learned Munsif on August 28, 1980.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully read the plaints filed on behalf of the plaintiff in each of the two suits.

8. Mr. Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit as instituted can be heard and determined by the Civil Court and as such, the learned Civil Judge, while setting aside the orders of the temporary injunction, which were passed by the learned Munsif on August 28, 1980, has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. Mr. Samdaria submitted that the first appellate court should not have gone into the question of jurisdiction while disposing of the appeals filed against the orders of the Munsif dated August 28, 1980 granting temporary injunction.

9. As the above contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has become necessary for me to decide whether the suits are cognizable by a civil court.

10. I specifically put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this point is decided in these two revisions, it will affect the decision of the objection raised on behalf of the defendants pertaining to the jurisdiction of the court, where the suits have been instituted. To this, learned counsel submitted that as the learned Civil Judge has se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document