IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 99 of 2006. Decided on: 3.7.2008. __________________________________________________ Lekh Ram … Plaintiff/Appellant. Versus Krishnu Ram and others. … Respondents/Defendants. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 16 & 21 : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondents No. 17 to 20 : None. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. A challenge has been laid by way of this Regular Second Appeal to the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1998. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) had filed a Civil Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur on 30.4.1994. The learned Senior Sub Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 10.9.1998. The learned Senior Sub Judge while deciding the suit had categorically held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try this suit and the issue raised by the plaintiff was to be decided on a reference to be made by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Land Acquisition Collector to the District Judge. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1998 before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur dismissed the appeal on 8.12.2005. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate has argued that once the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction and the matter was to be adjudicated upon under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the other findings could not be recorded with regard to ownership and possession of the plaintiff. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents has supported the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2005. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is evident from the judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court dated 10.9.1998 and 8.12.2005, respectively that they have correctly held that they had no jurisdiction to decide the issues raised by the plaintiff. The parties are in agreement that the issues raised by the plaintiff ought to be decided exclusively under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Once the trial Court had come to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter in view of specific provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the other findings ought not to have been recorded. The plaint was to be returned to the plaintiff to file it before an appropriate forum. The learned District Judge has also affirmed the findings of the trial Court with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court but had also affirmed the other findings recorded by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court after coming to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the lis ought to have directed the trial Court to return the plaint. 3 Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside and the trial Court may be directed to hand over the plaint to the plaintiff to file the same before an appropriate forum. This prayer has not been opposed by Mr. T.S. Chauhan. He fairly submits that once both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue raised by the plaintiff, the plaint ought to have been returned to present the same before an appropriate forum. Consequently, the findings recorded by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the judgments dated 10.9.1998 and 8.12.2005 respectively dealing with the aspect of ownership and possession are set aside. The trial Court is directed to hand over the plaint to the plaintiff to enable him to file it before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. With these observations, the regular second appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 3, 2008. (cr)