ORDER Harish Chandra, J. - This application arises out of an application under S. 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the point raised is that although the applicants who are opposite parties in the Court below have raised the question that they are tenants of the land in suit, the learned Munsif has refused to refer the issue arising out of that plea for decision to a revenue Court as required by S. 298 U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Section 288 requires that in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a civil Court in which any question regarding tenant right arises and such question has not previously been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the civil Court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and submit the record to the appropriate revenue Court for the decision of that issue. In the Explanation, however, it is said that a plea of tenancy which is clearly untenable and intended only to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court shall not be deemed to raise a plea of tenancy. I, however, do not find it necessary to consider that aspect of the matter in the present case. But my view is that inasmuch as a case under S. 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934, is not a suit but an application, the provisions of S. 288, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1989, which apply only to suits, will not apply. 2. It is pointed out on behalf of the applicants that an application under S. 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, is to all intents and purposes a suit. No doubt, S. 27 of the Act provides that the provisions in the CPC in regard to suits shall be followed, so far as they can be made applicable to all proceedings under the chapter in which S. 12 occurs. But that would not, in my view, make an application under S. 12 a suit. There are fundamental differences between suits and applications. Among other things the provisions of S. 11, Civil P.C., apply to suits only and I see on reason why the term suit used in S. 288, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, should be given a wide interpretation so as to include applications also. 3. There are fundamental differences between suits and applications. Among other things the provisions of S. 11, Civil P.C., apply to suits only and I see on reason why the term suit used in S. 288, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, should be given a wide interpretation so as to include applications also. 3. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants that the term 'plaint' has not been defined in the CPC and I am referred to the case of Assan and others v. Pathumma and others reported in, 22 Mad. 494. On p. 502 the definition of a 'plaint' has been given by the learned Judge and it is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants that an application under S. 12, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, would also answer that definition. That may be so. But the use of the term 'application' under 8. 12 of that Act, was obviously deliberate and there can be no doubt that the intention of the Legislature was that an application under S. 12 should not be treated as a suit, the reason being that it wanted to provide a somewhat speedy remedy for the redemption of mortgages contemplated by that section. In my opinion, the provisions of S. 288, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, are not applicable to applications under S. 12, U.P. Agriculturists, Relief Act, 1934. The application is accordingly rejected.