ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 6th January, 2005, passed by the revisional authority in S.C.C. Revision No. 5 of 2002, whereby the revisional authority has allowed the revision filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 19th July, 2002, passed by the trial court and remanded back the matter to the trial court for decision in the light of the observations made in the revisional court's order.
3. The controversy in short is that the tenant disputed the title of the landlord with regard to the accommodation in question and consequence thereto he has filed an application with the prayer that the plaint of the suit be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the regular court. In this case the petitioner has filed his written statement and evidence is yet to be adduced before the trial court. The trial court, at this stage, come to the conclusion that since there is a dispute with regard to the title of the accommodation in question, therefore, the Courts of Small Cause do not have any jurisdiction to try the suit and it should be presented before the regular court and that is why the plaint has been returned for presentation before the regular court. Before the revisional court, learned counsel for the revisionist-landlord herein, relied upon a decision in Jagan Nath Prasad v. District Judge, Allahabad, 1987 (1) ARC 90, wherein this Court has held which is quoted below :
"Only after evidence has been produced and the Court is of the opinion that a question of title is involved in the suit, which the Court of Judge Small Causes cannot finally determine, it is open to the court to return the plaint. In the present case, only a written statement had been filed in which the title had been set up. Mere filing of the written statement does not entitle the defendant- petitioner to move an application for return of the plaint to the proper court. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the court below was right in refusing to exercise a discretion under Section 21 of the Act, at this stage."
4. In view of what has been stated above, since the court below has remanded back the matter, normally this Court does not interfere with the order of remand, particularly in view of the fact that it is settled law that the trial court should not return the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act merely on objection disputing the title raised on behalf of the defendant.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground for interference with the order impugned in the present writ petition by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.