Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Once jurisdiction is given to a special tribunal, the remedy of filing a civil suit is to be held to be impliedly barred.

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.10.2007 passed by Seamed Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bathinda, vide which application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff is running a clinic by employing more than 19 employees. List of employees as on 31.7.2006 alongwith coverage proforma was provided by respondent No.1-plaintiff himself to the concerned Officer of petitioner. Respondent No.l was also issued Code number vide letter dated 4.8.2006 by the office of petitioner. As no acknowledgment was received from respondent no.l-plaintiff, another letter dated 31.7.2006 was issued through registered post to respondent No.l to produce the record. As respondent No.l was employing more than 19 employees, he was covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), as per the scheme framed under the Act and he was required to pay contribution at the prescribed rate under para 29 of the scheme, failing which the establishment is liable to pay damages under Section 14 of the Act. However, respondent instead of depositing the provident fund dues, as prescribed under the Act filed the present suit challenging the order of present petitioner, vide which Code number under the Act was allotted to him. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has sought decree for declaration to the effect that his clinic is not covered under the Act and that he is not liable to make any contribution or deposit the amount of his employees under the said Act and that the allotment of Code number by covering him under the Act vide letter dated 11.8.2006 is illegal and void.

4. After receiving notice of the suit, an application was filed by petitioner that Civil Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the controversy in dispute as appeal has been provided under Section 71 of the Act and however, instead of availing the said remedy of appeal, the present suit has been filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff and hence, the application is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order decided issue regarding jurisdiction by treating the same as a preliminary issue against the present petitioner-defendant by observing as under:-

Heard on preliminary issue No.3 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the court. Case of the defendant is that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not there in the light of Section 7(1) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (in short the Act 1952). Learned counsel for the defendant has also relied upon the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 12096 of 2004 and therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in the light of provision of Section 9 of CPC, there is no such provision expressly or impliedly barred of the jurisdiction of the civil Court so, the civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also relief upon "1994(1) Civil Court Cases 611 (S.C.), 1986 P.L.J. 651, 1996(1) Civil Court Cases 398 (P&H), 2004(1) Civil Court Cases 592 (P&H), 1966 A.I.R. 1089, and has prayed that since the defendant failed to prove if the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, so the suit is to be tried by this very Court.

It has been observed in the above referred authorities that the jurisdiction of the civil Court can only be ousted by the special statute and unless and until special statute is there, the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be ousted. Further more, it has been observed tha