JUDGMENT R. H. Zaidi, J.
1. This is defendants' revision filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 26.11.98 passed by Civil Judge. Senior Division, Bahraich, whereby issue Ncs. 7, 13 and 14 have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and issue No. 12 has been directed to be decided after production of the evidence by the parties.
2. Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Krishna Devi filed Original Suit No. 34 of 97 for partition of the property in dispute and for permanent injunction, in the Court below. It was pleaded that the property in dispute, which has been described in Schedule A & B appended to the plaint, was joint Hindu family property, which was not partitioned. In the property In dispute, the plaintiff-respondent claimed 1/2 share on the basis of the pedigree given in the plaint, and further prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants-applicants restraining them from interfering in the joint possession and from ejecting her from the property in dispute till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. Prayer for injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction in the property in dispute was also made.
3. The defendants-applicants filed written statement admitting the correctness of the pedigree given in the plaint, but contended that some of the disputed properties were not ancestral, technical and legal pleas regarding Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, bar of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as well as territorial jurisdiction of the Court below, were also taken.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed issues in the case, issue No. 7 related to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and decide the suit. Issue No. 13 related to bar of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Issue No. 14 related to territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. On the request made by the learned counsel for the parties, said issues were taken up for decision as preliminary issues. The Court below after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on the record decided said issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It has been held that the civil court had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the aforesaid suit, the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and that the Court below had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, hence the present revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the Court below has acted Illegally with material irregularity in deciding the aforesaid issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was urged that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the aforesaid suit, that the suit was barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and that the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The view taken to the contrary by the Court below, was manifestly erroneous and illegal, therefore, the Judgment and order passed by the Court below was liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent supported the validity of the iudgment and order passed by the Court below. It was urged that the civil court had iurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit for partition and permanent injunction with respect to the property in dispute, the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act had no application to the facts of the present case and in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the C.P.C., the Court below had territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
8. Section 9 of the C.P.C. provides that the civil courts are to try all civil suits unless they are specifically barred by any statute. Said section provides as under :
(Only relevant quoted) "9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.--The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or implledly barred."
9. Admittedly, the suit giving rise to the present revision is for partition and injunction. Both the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are of civil nature. Therefore, the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. However, section, itself postulates bar of jurisdiction of civil court by competent Legislature with respect to particular class of suit of civil nature. It is open to the State Legislature to bar iurisdiction of civil court with respect to a particular class of suit of civil nature acting within the four corners of the Constitution. It is well-settled in law that the jurisdiction of a civil court cannot be presumed to be ousted unless the suit as brought is specifically barred. Where the jurisdiction, which is vested in civil court, is intended to be ousted, there must be a clear statutory provision for the same in the relevant Act. In the present case, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant upon Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, in support of his contention that the civil court had no iurisdiction to entertain the suit. It has been urged that a portion of the property in dispute was agricultural land, therefore, in respect of the said land, suit could be filed in the revenue court and the civil court, in view of the aforesaid provision, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
10. The Court below after perusing the record of the case, came to the conclusion that the property in dispute was either houses or Abadi land and it was recorded in revenue papers as abadi and makan. The said finding is based on relevant evidence on the record (paper No. C29, C23 and 173C) and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The Court below has rightly placed reliance upon the decision in 1991 AWC 431 and 1980 ALJ 184, and was right in holding that the civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and that the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In view of the findings recorded by the Court below with respect to the nature of the land property, the decision of Apex Court in Devkinandan v. Suraj Pal. JT 1995 (8) SC 150, relied by learned counsel for the applicant wherein it was ruled that the land in dispute were indisputedly covered with the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, therefore, jurisdiction of the civil court was barred, has got no application to the facts of the present case. The Court below was right in holding that the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and that the civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit.
11. So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the jurisdiction of the civil court was challenged on the ground that a portion of the property in dispute was situated in Atraula District Gonda, therefore, it was contended that civil court Bahraich had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court below after perusing the evidence on the record held that the defendants were residents of District Behraich and that major portion of the property in dispute was situated in the said district and that only small portion of the said property was situated at Atraula, District Gonda. The Court below has referred to and relied upon the provisions of Section 17 of the C.P.C. to hold that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit in question. Section 17 of the C.P.C. provides as under :
"17. Suits for immovable property situate within Jurisdiction of different Courts.--"Where a suit is to obtain relief respectings, 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."
12. In view of the aforesaid provision, the suit was rightly filed in the civil court at Bahraich. Court below committed no jurisdictional error in holding that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Section 17 of C.P.C. is an exception to the provisions of Section 16. It applies only in the cases where immovable properties in dispute are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of different Courts, in that case suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. The intention of the Legislature is to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions in the same matter. Submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant that in the instant case provision of Section 16 of the C.P.C. were applicable and in view of the said provision, civil court at Bahraich had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, therefore, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel could not cite any decision where immovable properties in dispute were situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts and suits were either permitted or directed to be filed in different Courts by Supreme Court, this Court or any other High Court.
13. In my opinion, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material Irregularity or illegality.
14. Revision has got no merit. Same, therefore, falls and is dismissed with costs.