KAMLESH SHARMA, J.—This appeal is admitted and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. It is directed against the order dated 15th January, 1997 whereby the District Judge, Chamba has returned the plaint to the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Bhuni Devi under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for presenting the same to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order was passed in the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant No. 4 Smt. Nikko Devi, who was aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 7-4-1995 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Chamba in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, Smt. Bhuni Devi declaring her entitled to draw family pension of deceased Jagat Ram as his legally wedded wife and the respondent-defendant No. 4 Smt. Nikko Devi was restrained from claiming family pension of deceased Jagat Ram holding that she was not his legally wedded wife.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Bhuni Devi has urged that there are two parts of relief sought for by his client. The first part pertains to declaration that she was the only legally wedded wife of deceased Jagat Ram and respondent-defendant No. 4 Smt. Nikko Devi had no relation with him, for which the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. The second part of the relief pertains to the claim of the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Bhuni Devi for family pension of deceased Jagat Ram as his only legally wedded wife and for injunction against respondent-defendant No, 4 Smt. Nikko Devi restraining her from drawing family pension being the legally wedded wife of deceased Jagat Ram for which the State Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction. Relying upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Sheela Adhikari v. Rabindra Nath Adhikari and others, AIR 1988 Calcutta 273. The learned Counsel has urged that it was not proper for the District Judge to return the plaint. Instead, he should have decided the appeal in respect of the issue triable by the Civil Court with regard to the claim of the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Bhuni Devi that she was the only legally wedded wife of deceased Jagat Ram and in respect of the other issue, that she is entitled family pension of deceased Jagat Ram and that the respondent-defendant No. 4 Smt. Nikko Devi may be restrained from claiming the pension of deceased Jagat Ram as his legally wedded wife, the appellant-plaintiff could be directed to approach the State Administrative Tribunal.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Smt. Nikko Devi has opposed this appeal and supported the impugned order. According to the learned counsel both the reliefs sought by the appellant-plaintiff, Smt. Bhuni Devi, are so inextricably interwoven that these cannot be separated. The relief of declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of deceased Jagat Ram has been sought to get further relief of family pension in her capacity as legally wedded wife of deceased Jagat Ram. Referring to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the learned counsel has further urged that in the absence of prayer for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent-defendant No. 4 Smt. Nikko Devi from claiming family pension of deceased Jagat Ram, the suit of the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Bhuni Devi for a mere declaration is barred. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has cited the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Muni Lal v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (1996) 1 SCC 90.

4. After giving its best consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that they have not disputed that so far as the relief of pension is concerned, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is specifically barred under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, (hereinafter called "the Act"). Section 28 of the Act provides as follows : "28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts e