Jagat Narayan, C.J.
1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an appellate order of the District Judge, Alwar holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit for recovery of mesne profits.
2. The defendants have not appeared to contest the revision application.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and have perused the record.
4. Harji plaintiff is the tenant of a holding consisting of five(sic) situated in village Patan-ka-Bas having an area of 11 Bighas 7 Biswas He was dispossessed by Bansi and Bhagirath on 21-9-48 He filed a suit in the Revenue Court and finally an order for his reinstatement was passed on 8-7-55 by the Board of Revenue. The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court against the decision of the Board of Revenue which was admitted and a stay order, was passed preventing the plaintiff-applicant from taking possession over the plots. Their writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 27-8-56 The respondents then filed a suit for injunction in the court of Munsif, Rajgarh, and and an, ex-parte ad interim injunction was obtained on 13.9.56 which was vacaon 17.4.57 The respondents filed an appeal against that order on 22-4-57 and on the same day an order of temporary injunction was issued in favour of the respondents. The appeal was dismissed on 5.3.58. The respondents filed a revision application in the High Court and obtained a stay order. The revision application was dismissed on 1-10 59 and possession was restorted to the plaintiff on 7-3-60 On 11.10.60 he filed the present suit in the court of Civil Judge claiming mesne profits from 12.10.57 to 1-10-60. The Civil Judge held that the suit was of the nature falling under Section 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court.
5. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge but his appeal was dismissed. He has filed the present revision application.
6. The relevant part of Section 187, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, runs as follows:
187. Remedies for wrongful ejectment-
(1) Any tenant ejected from or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or, any part, there of otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, may sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession for all or any of the following reliefs, namely:
(ii) for compensation for wrongful ejectment or dispossession;
Section 207 of the Act runs as follows:
207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only -
(1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court,
(2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit of application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.
Explanation:If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with that, which the revenue court have granted.
7. Two contentions have been raised on behalf of the applicant. The fist contention is that Section 187 of the Act has no application the plaintiff was not prevented from taking possession otherwise than in accordance with law. But, he was prevented from doing so by orders passed by courts of law.
8. This contention has no force. The actual words used are 'prevention from obtaining possession of his holding... otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force.' According to the law contained in the Tenancy Acts the plaintiff was entitled to possession over his holding as he was its tenant. He was prevented from taking possession of his holding by ordery issued by various courts. from time to time at the instance of the defendants. But, nevertheless, he. was prevented from taking possession of his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Law for the time being in force.
9. The second contention is that a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for compensation for wrongful dispossession. This contention also has no force. It was held in Bhawaniram v. Seth Ram Narain 1955 RLW 112 that the term 'compensation 'is wider in scope than the term 'mesne profits' and it includes the latter, because in assessing the measure of compensation the court has to take into account the masne profits of the property. Obviously a claim to compensation for keeping the plaintiff out of the possession of agricultural land includes a claim to mesne profits.'
10. I accordingly, dismiss the revision application. No order as to cost.