Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In spite of sufficient service, no one has appeared for respondent No. 2 the only contesting respondent. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 288 of 1985 against defendant respondent No. 2. The suit was for cancellation of a sale deed and a will deed alleged by the defendants to have been executed by one Januka. Petitioners claimed themselves to be heirs of Smt. Januka. The trial Court decided the question of maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The revisional Court held that as the allegation in the plaint was that sale deed and will deed were void, hence civil court has got no jurisdiction. Accordingly, revisional Court allowed the revision and held that the suit is cognizable by revenue Court and not by civil Court. The said order was passed by IInd A.D.J., Saharanpur on 7.2.1989, which has been challenged through this writ petition.

4. Neither copy of the plaint nor of order of the trial Court has been filed in the writ petition.

5. In my opinion, the view taken by the revisional Court is utterly erroneous in law. In the Full Bench authority of this Court in Ram Padarath