JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Original owner landlord Raman Lal alias Kishan Chand since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed a suit for eviction against petitioner which is pending in the form of Original Suit No. 284 of 1978, Rarnan Lal v. Dido Ram, before regular civil court, i.e., Munsif, Bisauli. In the plaint it was alleged that defendant petitioner was tenant of the eastern portion and he had encroached upon the western portion. Relief of dispossession was sought from both the portions. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the western portion was vacated and its possession was delivered to the plaintiff. Thereafter an objection was raised that after vacation of the encroached portion defendant remained in occupation of tenanted portion only and suit for eviction of tenant was maintainable only before J.S.C.C. and not before regular civil court hence suit must be dismissed. The said plea was rejected by the trial court/Murisif Bisauli, district Budaun on 20.3.1987. Against the said order Civil Revision No. 46 of 1987 was filed by the petitioner. Revision was dismissed on 9.9.1988 hence this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Balbir Singh v. Smt. Kalawati, , to contend that the suit was maintainable before J.S.C.C. This aspect has been considered in para-6 of the said authority. In the said case suit was filed before J.S.C.C. and in the plaint it was stated that kothari shown by letter W in the map annexed with the plaint had unauthorizedly been occupied by the tenant, however, in case he treated himself to be tenant of the said kothari also then he must be evicted therefrom also. In the instant case when the suit was filed, it was cognizable by regular civil court. In the plaint it was not stated that if defendant treated himself, to be tenant of the western portion also and Court found the said allegation to be correct then defendant should be evicted from western portion also. Clear cut case of the plaintiff was that defendant was in unauthorized occupation of western portion. In view of this the suit was quite competent before regular civil court.
Under Section 17, C.P.C. it is provided as under :
17. "Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate :
Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court."
3. Even if the aforesaid Section does not apply ipso facto to the suits where jurisdiction to decide the suit in respect of part of the property is vested in regular civil court and jurisdiction to decide the suit in respect of the other part of the property is vested in J.S.C.C. still the principle underlying the said section will be applicable to such types of suits.
4. It has been held by a Full Bench authority of this Court in ILR (1908) 30 560 All that once a Court is properly seized of jurisdiction under Section 17, the subsequent withdrawal of a part of the claim in respect of property lying within its jurisdiction does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to dispose of the other part of the claim unless the withdrawal is fraudulent or is a mere device to evade the provisions of the Code as to local jurisdiction.
5. On the same principle delivery of possession of the encroached property by defendant to the plaintiff will not take away the suit from the jurisdiction of the regular civil court in respect of the tenanted property. Under Section 20(c), C.P.C every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It has been held in AIR 1957 Raj 241 and AIR 1928 Mad 746 that where a court once obtains jurisdiction over a suit, it is not deprived of it by the happening of subsequent events.
6. It has been held by the Full Bench Authority of this Court in Manzurul Haq and Anr. v. Hakim Mohsin All, , that the Court of small causes is a court of preferential jurisdiction and not of exclusive jurisdiction.
7. Under Order II, Rule 3, C.P.C. plaintiff may combine in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant. It has been held in Brij Krshore Jain v. IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh and Ors., 1985 AWC 742, that provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of Small Causes Courts Act (which provide for cognizance of suits by courts of small causes), do not override provisions of Order II, Rules 2 and 3, C.P.C.
8. It has been held in AIR 1950 MB 14, that suit as originally brought and not the character which it ultimately assumes determines the jurisdiction of the Court.
9. In view of the above authorities it is quite clear that even after surrender of possession of the encroached property by the defendant to the plaintiff, suit remained cognizable by regular civil court.
10. In fact the defendant did not raise any objection in respect of the jurisdiction when the suit was filed. If during the pendency of suit the portion which was forcibly occupied by the defendant petitioner was handed over by him to the owner landlord, jurisdiction of civil court did not become barred.
11. Accordingly it is held that there is absolutely no error in the impugned orders. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
12. It is unfortunate that for seventeen years this writ petition remained pending and proceedings of the suit remained held up. Trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.