1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2007 (sSushma Raghunathji Sanghi .v. Arvind Bapuraoji Bhivgade) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 31ST JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present application, the applicant challenges the order dated 06.01.2007 vide which application filed by the applicant below Exh.10 has been rejected. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that an agricultural land bearing Kh.No.124 Gat No.316 was owned by the father of the plaintiff and after the death of the father, the said property has come to the plaintiff and other legal heirs. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant and some other persons entered the field of the plaintiff and threatened him that the fields in possession of the plaintiff are 2 owned by them and asked for possession. As such, a suit claiming relief for declaration and injunction came to be filed. The present applicant filed an application under Order 9-A read with Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for framing of the preliminary issue and hold that the Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the civil suit. The same is rejected. Hence the present petition. Shri A.S. Agrawal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the entire dispute between the parties is regarding the measurement. It is submitted that the measurement has in fact been done by Taluka Inspector of Land Records against which an appeal has also been filed by the present respondent/plaintiff. It is submitted that unless the issue of measurement is decided, the suit cannot proceed. He further submits that Maharashtra Land Revenue Code provides a complete code for considering the disputes of the nature for which the suit is filed. He relies on the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bansrajidevi Bhuval Singh Ramniranjan Singh and others .v. M/s. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited and others (reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J., 95). He further submits that the learned trial Court has not given any reason as to why the application is 3 rejected. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submits that the suit of the plaintiff is on the basis of possession alone. He submits that in so far as the measurement and suit property is concerned, the issue is separate which is being agitated before the competent authority. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted. It is the settled law that for determining the question of jurisdiction, it is the averment in the plaint which will have to be looked into. From the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff has averred that his father was the owner of the suit property and after the death of the father, the suit property has come in his possession. It is further averred that the defendant along with some other persons is trying to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff. In this premise, a suit for declaration and an injunction restraining the defendant from interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff has been filed. It can thus be seen that the relevant issue for determination of jurisdiction of the said suit would be as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit fields which have come to him and 4 other legal heirs of deceased father. The said issue will have to be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence that would be led before it. It cannot, therefore, be said that the said issue is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court. In so far as the reliance placed on the judgment of this Court is concerned, the said judgment pertains to the entry in revenue records on the basis of the possession. The learned Single Judge has held that for entering one's name in the Record of Rights, the applicant has to show that his possession of land is lawful and that he had come into the possession by legal means. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Court has been exercised with material irregularity so as to warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Civil Revision Application is rejected as such. JUDGE *rrg.