1. The Subordinate Courts certainly had jurisdiction in this matter. The plaintiff held a decree against one Jhandoo a tenant of the defendant Mukhtar Ahmad. What Jhandoo did was to get up a fictitious distraint by the zamindar and thereby fraudulently prevented the plaintiff from recovering the amount of his decree by selling Jhandoo's crops. Both the Subordinate Courts have found that really no rent was due from Jhandoo to Mukhtar Ahmad and that the distraint was collusive and fraudulent. It was argued that the jurisdiction lay entirely with the revenue Court under Section 181, Ten. Act. The provisions of that section, however, afford no relief to a third person against a fraudulent distraint collusively brought about by a zamindar against his tenant. Those provisions merely provide for the precedence of a rent claim where the distraint is genuine. The claim for rent is to prevail over a claim against a tenant for any other purpose. The Tenancy Act does not provide for a s(SIC)t of the nature of the one filed by the plaintiff. Wherever fraud or collusion is alleged and one person has derived benefit and another has lost by such fraud or collusion, the jurisdiction of the civil Court certainly arises.
2. This application is dismissed with costs.