Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant injunction.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1017 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Pondicherry is the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1427 of 1996. He has filed the said suit against the respondents herein seeking for a decree for injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit properties. Pending the suit, he filed an application I.A.No.4634 of 1993 for the grant of interim injunction till the disposal of the suit on the ground that he is in possession of the suit property. The claim of the first respondent that he was a cultivating tenant had been negatived by the decree of the civil court and as such he cannot interfere with physical possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the petitioner. This application was opposed by the respondents contending that the respondent was declared as cultivating tenant by the revenue authorities and by virtue of the order dated 11. 93 in E.A.No.l of 1993 in PCTPA.No.5 of 1983 the respondent was put in possession of the properties. Since the possession has been restored to the respondent by the revenue authorities, the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit properties is with the respondent herein and as such the petitioner is not entitled for an order of injunction, since the question to be decided in the injunction suit is only the physical possession of the party.

2. However, the trial court has allowed the application filed by the petitioner and granted injunction on the ground that the respondent’s claim that he was a cultivating tenant had been negatived by the civil court and ultimately confirmed by this court in S.A.No.6 of 1980. Hence the subsequent proceeding before the revenue authorities initiated by the respondent herein under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is without jurisdiction and as such the orders passed thereunder are null and void. As against this order, the first respondent herein has filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.17 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The lower appellate court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the appeal on the ground that in O.S.538 No.of 1976 filed by the respondent herein, the question whether the first respondent was or not the cultivating tenant was not decided. Since that question was not decided, the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is valid, since the question as to whether the respondent is a cultivating tenant or not is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. Further against the order of redelivery ordered of the revenue authorities, the petitioner herein has not preferred any revision to challenge the same. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has filed this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has filed the suit O.S.No.538 of 1976 that he is a cultivating tenant; since the property has been leased out to him by the defendants therein and sought for a decree for injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with peaceful possession. Though the suit was decreed by the trial court, on appeal, the decree was set aside on the ground that the respondent is not a cultivating tenant. On further appeal, this court has confirmed the decree of the lower appellate court in S.A.No.6 of 1980 and as such the proceedings initiated by the respondent before the revenue authorities seeking the relief that he is a cultivating tenant under the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is without jurisdiction. The observations of the lower appellate court in the order in the C.M.A. that the question as to whether the respondent was a cultivating tenant or not has not been decided either by the lower appellate court or this court in the earlier proceeding is not correct. Equally the statement of the lower appellate court that the petitioners have not challenged the order of