1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 690 OF 2009 Mr. Rajendra Pandit Kulkarni & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. Bajirao Bhimu Patil & Others. ... Respondents. Mr. Rahul Walwekar for the Applicants. Mr. Abhijit M. Adagale for Respondents 1 to 6. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th MARCH 2010. P.C. :- This Petition is filed by the Original Defendants whose objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court has been over- ruled and the trial court has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the subject Suit. 2. The Respondents-Plaintiffs filed a Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.267 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur for a declaration that the notice dated 19th March 2008 served on them by the Petitioners/Original Defendants’ Advocate is bad in law and not binding upon them. Therefore, the Court must issue an appropriate declaration in that behalf. 3. Prayer clause (b) of the plaint is that the Plaintiffs possession in respect of the Suit property should not be disturbed or obstructed by the Petitioners-Original Defendants, save and except by due process of law. 2 4. Admittedly, the lands in question are agricultural lands. The notice issued in that behalf recites the same. The description of the Suit property and that it is an agricultural land on which certain crops are being cultivated, is undisputed. 5. Therefore, the objection raised by the Petitioner – Defendant to the Trial Court’s jurisdiction is on the basis that if Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and more particularly, Section 85 thereof is applicable, then, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to issue the declaration with regard to the legality and validity of the suit notice is ousted. It is only the authority under the said Act which could determine this issue. 6. This objection having been over-ruled by the Trial Court, the Defendants have approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 7. From a perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it is apparent that it does not dispute that it would have no jurisdiction to issue a declaration with regard to the status of the Plaintiffs in respect of the Suit properties. However, according to the Trial Court, it would still have jurisdiction to declare whether the Suit notice is legal or valid and further in any event it can grant a relief under prayer clause (b) of the plaint. That is a relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from disturbing the Plaintiffs possession in respect of the Suit property. 3 8. After the matter was argued for some time, it was fairly stated that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction in so far as prayer clause (a) of the plaint and particularly, about the legality and validity of the Suit notice. However, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents invited my attention to prayer clause (b) of the plaint and urged that atleast the relief of permanent injunction could have been granted by the Civil Court and the Suit was maintainable to that extent. 9. Considering the averments in the plaint and the prayer clauses which were brought to my notice, I raised query to the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners and he states that the Petitioners are willing to make a statement before this Court that they would not obstruct or interfere with the Plaintiffs’ possession in respect of the Suit property, save and except by due process of law. Mr. Walwekar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners – Original Defendants, on instructions, makes a statement that the Petitioners would not obstruct or interfere in any manner with the Plaintiffs – Respondents’ possession in respect of the Suit property, save and except by due process of law. In the light of the statement which is accepted as an undertaking to this Court, to my mind, the Petition can be disposed of by the following order :- “(a) The order of the Trial Court is quashed and set aside and it is held that the Trial Court has no 4 jurisdiction to grant the declaration in terms of prayer clause (a) of the plaint. (b) However, as far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, in the light of the undertaking of the Petitioner – Original Defendant to this Court, although, the Trial Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and try this Suit to that extent, nothing survives in the Suit and it stands disposed of in the light of the statements made by the Defendants before me.” 10. The Revision Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)