The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit for declaration of Bhumidhari rights and share in produce of trees, as such matters are cognizable by a revenue court.

( 1 ) AT the very outset, I may dispose of an application for permission to file additional evidence in appeal. The document which is sought to be brought on record may be relevant on the merits of the controversy but has no relevance for the decision of the appeals before me which only involve question of jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed and the document be returned to the defendant-appellant.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs allegations, the land in dispute was fixed rate tenancy of their mother prior to the abolition of Zamindari. On her death, the plaintiffs became her sole heirs. On 1-12-1946, a registered agreement was executed between the plaintiffs father and the defendants according to which the defendants were permitted to plant some trees over the land and the produce and the wood thereof was to be shared amongst them equally. After the Zamindari abolition, the plaintiffs claimed to have become Bhumidhars of the land. As the defendants had failed to pay plaintiffs share in the produce, a decree for Rupees 1,100/- and a declaration that they were the Bhumidhars of the land and that revenue entry in defendants favour was incorrect were prayed for in the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants on fads as well as on various legal grounds but two main questions raised were about jurisdiction of Civil Court and abatement of the suit in view of Section 5, U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and recorded findings on all of them. It also came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of this finding, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. In appeal the lower appellate Court did not enter into discussion on any other issue and merely decided the issue of jurisdiction. It too came to the conclusion that the suit was not triable by the Civil Court. Accordingly it directed return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Against this decision, both the parties have felt aggrieved and have filed those first appeals from order.

( 3 ) SRI Sankatha Rai, learned counsel appearing for the plainitffs-appellants, has, very rightly, not seriously urged on the merits of the finding that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He has only confined his submissions to defend and justify the order passed by the lower appellate court and for this he has placed reliance on a single Judge decision of this Court in Gulab v. Jaggan Ram Singh, 1983 Rev Dec 185 : (AIR 1983 All 145 ). On the other hand, Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, has urged that where any suit had been heard on merits by the trial Court and all the issues had been thrashed out, the Court cannot direct return of the plaint and the only course open to it then was to dismiss the suit even if it finds that it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit. He assailed the correctness of the order under appeal on this ground. He relies upon another single Judge decision of this Court in Devi Datt sharma v. Teg Singh, 1979 All LJ 1086 and an unreported decision by Honble the Chief Justice in F. A. F. O. No. 483 of 1982 Sukhraj v. Nageshwar Ram decided on 11-8-1982. In both these cases having held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction the suit itself was dismissed instead of ordering return of the plaint.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Ordinarily it is for the plaintiff in each case to choose his own forum for filing the suit. In doing so he must allege such material facts as will, on proof thereof, enable the Court to sustain it. If on the basis of those allegations, a suit can prima facie be maintained in the Civil Court, the Court will proceed further with such a plaint and give an opportunity to the defendant to contest it. If, however, on the basis of the evidence led before it, the Court ultimately finds that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving essential juris