The legal principle established is that the bar under Section 77 (3) (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act applies only to disputes between tenants and landlords, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction if there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

Vinod K.Sharma CM No.23220-CII of 2005

For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed. The order dated 20.5.2005 is recalled. The revision petition is restored to its original number and is taken up for hearing on merit.

CR No.1874 of 1993

2. Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.5.1993 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Rajpura vide which plaint was ordered to be returned to the petitioner for presentation before the Revenue Court by holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter in view of the provisions of Section 77 (3) (n) of third Group and thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (for short the Act).

3. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for mesne profit regarding the agricultural land measuring 84 Bighas 10 Biswas against the defendant-respondent on the plea he was in unauthorized possession of the land. It was further the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that the defendant-respondent had created a forged Will of Jai Singh deceased, father of the petitioner in respect of the suit land in his favour who was initially in possession of the suit land as a licencee and relative of the plaintiff from 1969. Later on, the respondent started claiming himself to be the owner of the suit land and filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of alleged forged Will of Jai Singh and obtained an ad-interim injunction against the plaintiff on 21.5.1974. The plaintiff-petitioner also filed a suit for possession of the suit land on 21.8.1974. Both the suits were consolidated. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and that of defendant-respondent was dismissed.

4. During the pendency of Regular Second Appeal before this Court, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,04,800/-as mesne profits for unauthorized possession of the suit land. Consequently, on the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal by this Court the petitioner in execution also took possession of the land in dispute.

5. The suit was contested by the respondent and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and is entitled to recover Rs.6,04,800/-as mesne profits from the defendant?OPP

2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

4. Relief.

6. Even though the parties had led evidence on all the issues, the learned Trial Court decided only issue No.2 and gave no findings on other issues even though it was incumbent upon the Court to have given findings on all the issues where the parties have led evidence and issue No.2 was not treated as preliminary issue. On issue No.2 learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that suit for mesne profits regarding agricultural land was not maintainable before the Civil Court as the jurisdiction was barred under section 77 (3) (n) read with Section 14 of the Act. In order to reach to this conclusion the learned Trial Court placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Pritam Singh Vs. Mehal Singh and others 1986 P.L.J. 153.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court referred to above as the same was contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Raja Durga Singh of Solon Vs. Tholu and others 1962 P.L.R. 837 wherein it has been held as under:

“5. We are not concerned with second proviso. Below the second proviso the kind of suits which are triable by the revenue courts are set out in three groups. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the suit in question would fall under entry (e) in the second group. That entry reads thus:

“Suits by a landlord to eject a tenant.” They also contend that their suit before the revenue court