A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) ON 29th February 1952, the opposite parties filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Mirzapur claiming possession over the plots mentioned in the plaint. The allegations with which the opposite parties came were these: The land in dispute was lying parti before 1356f. There were many self-grown trees on it On 26th February 1949, the zamindar of the village granted a patta in respect of the land in favour of the opposite parties and they entered into possession of the same. They themselves planted some trees on the land also. Having deposited ten times the rent they obtained a Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of the land. When they started building constructions on it, the fact was resented by the petitioners who in collusion with the patwari had got the land entered in the papers in their own names. With the object of making the opposite parties give up the land the petitioners started litigation in respect of it and at first launched criminal proceedings. The opposite parties then filed a suit in the revenue Court under Section 59 of the Tenancy Act claiming a declaration that they were the tenants of the land. The suit was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed on appeal on the ground that as the opposite parties who befere the plaintiffs were not in actual possession they could not be granted a declaration in view of the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit out of which the present application has arisen was then filed in the Munsifs Court and the opposite parties claimed possesion over the land. The petitioners who were the defendants contested the suit on various grounds. They pleaded inter alia that the land in dispute was really a grove of which they had been in possession for the last 32 years and they had also their constructions on it. They also pleaded that the suit was not triable by the civil Court and that it was barred by limitation. The munsif framed several issues in the case, one of them being whether the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court. He took up this issue as a preliminary issue and decided it in the negative. He then fixed a date for the hearing and disposal of the other issues in the case. The petitioners then filed the present application and prayed that the order of the learned Munsif be set aside as the view taken by him on the question of jurisdiction was erroneous. The petition came up before Mr. Justice V. D. Bhargava and it was urged on behalf of the opposite parties that the decision was on a preliminary issue framed in the case and as no case had been decided no application under Section 115 was entertainable. They also urged that in the circumstances of the case the relief prayed for by the petitioners could not be granted to them even under Article 227 of the Constitution. In support of (sic) Buddhoo Lal v. Mewa Sam, 19 All LJ 558: (AIR 1921 All 1) (FB) (A), which had been approved by a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Richpal Singh v. Daya Nand Sarup, (S)AIR 1955 All 309 (B ). In support of the latter contention reliance was placed on the cases reported in Har Saran Dass v. Mukandi Lal, AIR 1951 All 514 (C), and the State of Uttar pradesh v. Abdul Aziz, AIR 1955 All 673 (D ). The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that as the case had not been finally decided the impugned order could not be revised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He strenuously urged however that as the Munsif had really no jurisdiction to try the suit and had assumed a jurisdiction not vested in him this Court should interfere under Article 227 of the constitution and quash his order. The learned counsel questioned (he correctness of the two decisions relating to the scope of article 227 relied upon by the opposite parties and pointed out that the decisions were not in consonance with a series of decisions of this Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document