JUDGMENT:

1. his is revision iled by the defendant thereby challenging the impugned order dated 07/09/2017 passed by the learned Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.67/2017/C thereby rejecting the application iled under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.

2. his revision was admitted on 08/02/2018 and is tagged with Civil Revision Application No.40 of 2019, since Civil Revision Application No.40/2019 is arising out of rejection of the application iled under Order 7 Rule 11 for dismissal of the counterclaim.

3. Heard Mr Sawant appearing for the applicant, Ms Asha Desai appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms Sonadevi Nishad appearing for respondents No.2,3 and 4. With their assistance I have perused the paper book containing plaint, relevant documents and impugned order.

4. Mr Sawant appearing for the applicant would submit that a meaningful reading of the plaint would clearly go to show that the plaintif is claiming to be a tenant of the suit property and alleging wrongful dispossession or interference by the landlord and others. According to him, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred under Section 58(B) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act . He would submit that the deinition of “tena