WPMS No.2169 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the respondent. The plaintiff opposite party filed a civil suit for recovery of rent, damages and for possession of the property in question. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application that the suit had wrongly been instituted in the civil court in the original side. Since it was a matter relating to recovery of rent and for possession, a suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act had to be filed before the Judge Small Cause Courts and, therefore, prayed that the suit may be returned to be presented before the appropriate court. This application was allowed by the trial court against which the petitioner, who is the defendant, filed a revision, which was dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner disputes the title of the respondent and contends that he is not the owner and, consequently, in view of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the suit is not maintainable before the Provincial Small Cause Courts. At the moment, the trial court only considered the application of the plaintiff for allowing the plaint to be withdrawn and to be presented before the appropriate court. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. The objection of the petitioner, if any, contained in the written statement or otherwise can always be raised before the court concerned. If such an issue is raised, the same will be decided accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 28.11.2011 LSR