1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2633 OF 2007 Shri Baba Laxman Godase Mali ...Petitioner Versus Shri Madhukar Savata Mali (Godase) & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.M.Oak for Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondents 2 to 7. ...... CORAM:- A.S.OKA, J. DATED:- FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is original Defendant No.7. Trial Court passed an order in the Suit filed by the 1st Respondent holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit and therefore the Plaint was ordered to be returned. The Appellate Court in the Appeal preferred by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff has interfered with the said order and has set-aside the order passed by the Trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Suit filed by the 1st Respondent is for declaration of ownership on the basis 2 of Sale Certificate issued to the said Respondent under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He submitted that thereafter there is an order dated 7th March 1980 passed by the Tahsildar, by which, the possession was ordered to be restored to the Petitioner. He submitted that in effect, the first Respondent is challenging the orders passed by the Authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and therefore, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. 3. I have considered the submissions. Issue of jurisdiction will have to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the Plaint. On the basis of Certificate issued under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 in favour of the 1st Respondent, a declaration of ownership has been claimed in the Suit. On plain reading of the averments made in the Suit, bar under Section 85 of the said Act of 1948 is not attracted. If by virtue of any other order of the Authorities under the said Act, any title is conferred on the Petitioner, the Petitioner can raise that contention in the written statement. The Trial Court can always frame appropriate issue on the basis of the said contention. If occasion arises, Trial Court will have to refer appropriate issue in accordance with Section 85A of the said Act of 1948. 3 4. The Trial Court ordered return of the plaint. The said order was obviously bad in law as only Civil Court could have granted declaration of ownership. While dealing with issue of jurisdiction, the Court could not have gone into the merits. Ultimately, the Suit filed by the 1st Respondent may fail on merits. However, on plain reading of the averments made in the Plaint, it cannot be said that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 5. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)