JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under section 96 of CPC against the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/2008 (Khemchand v. Parsram and others) by Additional District Judge, Rehli District Sagar seeking setting aside of impugned judgment and decree.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of present appeal are that plaintiff along with some other persons formed a partnership and above firm, purchased land bearing khasra No. 69 and 70 through registered sale deed dated 14.3.1983. Above firm was dissolved on 13.1.1984 and there was oral partition between partners of the firm. In above partition, plaintiff got suit property i.e. survey Nos. 69 and 70 on 13.1.1984. Partnership dissolution deed was executed on 13.01.1984. Plaintiff is owner of disputed property, i.e. survey Nos. 69 and 70. In the year 2016, defendants No. 1 to 3, illegally took possession of suit property. Plaintiff filed an application under section 250 of MPLRC before revenue court but this application is still pending and has not been decided till today. With aforesaid averments, plaintiff filed a present suit for delivery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 to 3. In the instant case, defendants No. 1 to 3 did not appear before trial court and they have been proceeded Ex-parte. They did not file any written statement.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that trial Court has wrongly dismissed plaintiff’s suit on the ground that in view of section 250 and 257 (x) of MPLRC, civil court has no jurisdiction and revenue court has exclusive jurisdiction. With respect to above, learned trial Court wrongly relied upon Smt. Dhudo Bai Vs. Bajirao and another, (2004) 4 MPLJ 364 as plaintiff was owner of suit property. Therefore, he was entitled to recover possession from defendants. Hence, plaintiff’s suit before Civil Court was maintainable. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and impugned judgment and decree be set aside and case be remitted back to the trial court to decide the case afresh on merit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

5. Perusal of impugned judgment, especially paras 16 to 19, reveals that learned trial Court, after relying upon Dhudo Bai (supra) and also referring to sections 250 and 257 (x) of MPLRC, dismissed plaintiff’s suit as being not maintainable on the ground that under section 257(x) of MPLRC, civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred.

6. Issue before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiff’s suit was barred under section 257(x) of MPLRC.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer relevant provisions of sections 250 and 257(x) of MPLRC, which were in force at relevant point of time which are as under:-

“250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.-1) For the purpose of this section and section 250-A Bhoomiswami shall include occupancy tenant and government lessee.

(1-a) If a bhoomiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the Bhoomiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this code, the Bhoomiswami or his successor in interest may apply to the Tehsildar for restoration of the possession,-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) in case of a Bhoomiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be.

257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities - Except as otherwise provided in this code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the