ORDER

D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision u/s 115 CPC by Rameshwar, Defendant, against the order dated 15.4.1963 of the Addl. Munsif, Gorakhpur, holding that the present suit for injunction was cognizable by the civil court.

2. Ram Asrey son of Tapesar, Plaintiff opposite party, had instituted the present suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant, Rameshwar, from interfering with his possession over plot No. 263/1, area 0.63 acres, of village Kharkharaiva. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the Plaintiff be found not to be in possession of the land, possession be given to him after dispossession of the Defendant. The alternative relief was, however, got deleted at a subsequent stage and the plaint as it at present stands, is for a perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the agricultural plot in dispute.

3. The suit was instituted on 11.4. 1962 after the amendment of S. 331 of the UPZA and LR Act under UP Act No. XXVIII ;of 1961. As a result of this amendment the civil court cannot take cognizance of a suit, application or proceeding based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief can be obtained by means of any suit or application detailed in column 3 of Schedule IT. It is further made clear in the Explanation to Sub-section (l) of Section 331 that 'if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the reveune court would have granted "

4. The relief for injunction can be granted to the Plaintiff on his satisfying the court that he was in possession and his title to the property. Injunction cannot thus be granted to a person who is not entitled to a declaratory relief. Consequently, one of the reliefs which can be obtained in a suit based on the same cause of action shall be declaration and the other injunction. The Civil Court, therefore, will not have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction if it be found that a suit for declaration based on the same cause of action is cognizable by the revenue court.

5. Ram Asrey Plaintiff has not impleaded the State Government and the Gaon Samaj; the suit is against Rameshwar only. The non impleading of the State Government and the Gaon Samaj shall be of no consequence if they are necessary parties in the sense that no relief for declaration can be granted without their being impleaded in the suit. No one can be permitted to (sic) a court of its jurisdiction confer (sic) it under the law by not implead (sic) party or by using different para (sic) while giving the facts of the (sic) while asking for a relief. The law must have its course. However, the purpose of the suit shall have to be ascertained before deciding who are the necessary parties and whether the suit can be entertained by the court without impleading the necessary Parties and whether after impleading the necessary parties the suit is or not Cognizable by that court.

6. The second point to be kept in mind is that the decision at present is being given at a preliminary stage before the parties have adduced their complete evidence. Consequently, if it be held at this stage that the suit is within the cognizance of the civil court, the matter can be reconsidered, if it be later found that the State Government and the Gaon Samaj were necessary parties and the declaration was, in fact, sought for against them also and not against the Defendant alone.

7. At the stage material on record merely consists of the pleadings of the parties and a few extracts of village records. Any plea raised in the written statement cannot be used against the Plaintiff unless there exists no dispute on facts. Extracts of village records being public documents can however be taken judicial notice of In other words at this stage the plea of jurisdiction shall have to be determined on the basis of the case as put