JUDGMENT R. Dayal, J. - This is a reference under Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 289 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. A suit for a declaration that the plain-tiffs were grove holders was filed on the 5th of March 1952 in the court of the Judicial Officer, Akbarpur. It was a suit under Sec. 206 read with Sec. 59 of the Act. The zamindars were impleaded as defendants. The cause of action was alleged to have arisen on the 20th of January 1952. The Judicial Officer held that the suit was cognizable by a civil court and therefore ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. It is not clear whether the defendants or any of them had raised the question of jurisdiction in his court. 3. The plaint was then filed in the court of Munsif, Faizabad. The defendants contended there that the suit was cognizable by the revenue court. The learned Munsif held against this contention and decided the suit on merits. He decreed the suit. Daya Ram and others filed an appeal against the decree which was heard by the Civil Judge Faizabad. The appellants contended that the suit was not triable by the civil court. The learned Civil Judge agreed with this contention. It was further contended before him that in view of this finding the suit should be dismissed and that it was not necessary to refer the case to this Court. He disagreed with this contention. He also disagreed with the contention that the expression "latter court" in sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 289 of the Act applied only to the court of first instance and not to the appellate court. In the result therefore he made this reference. 4. We are of opinion that this reference is incompetent. Sec. 289 of the Act is : "(1) Where either a civil or a revenue court is in doubt whether it is competent to entertain any suit, application or appeal, or whether it should direct the plaintiff, applicant or appellant to file the same in a court of the other description, the court may submit the record with a statement of the reasons for its doubt to the High Court. (2) Where any suit, application or appeal, having been rejected either by a civil court or by a revenue court on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is subsequently filed in a court of the other description, the latter court, if it disagrees with the finding of the former, shall submit the record, with a statement of the reasons for its disagreement to the High Court. (3) In cases falling under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the court is a revenue court subordinate to the Collector, no reference shall be made under the foregoing provisions of this section except with the previous sanction of the Collector. (4) On any such reference being made, the High Court may order the court either to proceed with the case, or to return the plaint, application or appeal for presentation to such other court as it may declare to be competent to try the same. (5) The order of the High Court shall be final and binding on all courts, subordinate to it or to the Board." 5. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 289 of the Act gives the power to make a reference to a court, whether civil or revenue, in which a suit, application or appeal having been rejected by a court of one description, is subsequently filed in case that court disagrees with the finding of the other court. It is not only applicable to the proceedings in the court of first instance but is applicable to the proceedings in the appellate court as well. If a question arises with respect to jurisdiction to entertain a suit recourse to the provisions of this sub-section can be taken by the trial court alone. If the question is with respect to jurisdiction to entertain an appeal the appellate court can take action. Regarding an application only that court can take action where such an application is filed on its being rejected by the other court, civil or revenue, as the case may be. 6. This view finds support from the provisions of Sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 239 of the Act which provides what the High Court has to do on such reference. Regarding an application only that court can take action where such an application is filed on its being rejected by the other court, civil or revenue, as the case may be. 6. This view finds support from the provisions of Sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 239 of the Act which provides what the High Court has to do on such reference. This Court can either order the referring court to proceed with the case, i.e. to proceed with the suit, application or appeal, or direct it to return the plaint, application or appeal for presentation to such other court as it may declare to be competent to try the same. On the present reference, if competent, this court can either order the referring court to proceed with the hearing of the appeal or order the return of the appeal for presentation to the revenue court competent to hear it. It cannot, on this reference, order the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper revenue court without first setting aside the decree of the trial court and remanding the suit to the trial court with a direction that it would pass the order of returning it for presentation to the proper court in accordance with the view of this Court. All this is not contemplated by Sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 289 of the Act. 7. The reference is really intended to ensure that the suit, application or appeal be not disposed of by a court which has no jurisdiction to dispose of it. The moment the court dealing with any suit, application or appeal considers that it has no jurisdiction, it has either to order the return of the plaint, application or memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper court or, if the other court had expressed an opinion about jurisdiction, to refer the matter to the High Court to resolve the conflict in the opinion of the two courts, civil or revenue, either of which is competent to deal with that suit, application or appeal. 8. In view of the above, we reject this reference and direct that the learned Civil Judge will proceed with the appeal according to law.