JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of an appellate Court returning a plaint to the plaintiffs to be presented by them to the proper Court. In this case the plaintiffs, who are landholders, came into Court asking for a declaration that certain person had no right or title in land that had been therefore held as an occupancy holding by a person now deceased. The defendants pleaded that they were tenants of such occupancy holding. The Court of first instance repelled the contention of the defendant that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, but upon the merits decide in their favour and dismissed the suit. The Court of appeal holding that the suit was not rightly brought in the Civil Court returned the plaint practically for presentation in the Revenue Court. That is the order appealed against. It seems to us that neither of the Court below has appreciated the effect of section 202 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act (No. II of 1901). 2. That section in our opinion applies with entire precision to the case. It provides that “If in any suit relating to an agricultural holding instituted in a Civil Court, the defendant pleads that he holds such land as the tenant of the plaintiff or of a person in possession holding from the plaintiff, the Civil Court shall, by order in writing, require the defendant to institute within three months a suit in the Revenue Court for the determination of such question. (2) If the defendant fails to comply with the order, the Court shall decide such question against him. If the defendant institutes the suit in compliance with the order, the Civil Court shall dispose of the suit pending before it in accordance with the final decision of the Revenue Court of first instance or appeal, as the case may be, upon such question.” The order which ought to have been made by the Court of first instance was the order requiring the defendants to institute a suit in the Revenue Court instead of itself trying the case upon its merits and deciding upon them. The Court of first appeal ought to have instructed the Court of first instance to take the course prescribed by section 202 which provides that it is the defendant's duty to file a suit, instead of ordering in effect that the plaintiffs should institute a suit in the Revenue Court. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the Court below, and send the case to the Court of first instance with direction to receive back the plaint and to comply with the provision of section 202 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act (No. II of 1901). Costs here and higher to will follow the event.