ORDER T. P. Naik, J. 1. The plaintiffs-applicants filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Mungeli, for the possession of a house situate at mouza Lormi under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the allegation that they had been illegally dispossessed therefrom by the defendants-non-applicants on or about 21-1-1966 when they (the defendants) forcibly trespassed into the house after breaking open the locks. The defence, inter-alia, was that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of section 257(x) read with section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') as the land on which the house stood was held by the plaintiffs-applicants in Bhumiswami rights. 2. The trial Court has upheld the objection of the defendants and hence the plaintiffs-applicants have come up in revision to this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Section 257 of the Code bars the jurisdiction of a civil Court to entertain any suit in respect of re-instatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed, which is cognizable by a revenue Court under section 250 of the Code. Section 250(1) of the Code says– “If a Bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law......the Bhumiswami......may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration... ... " The expression 'land' is defined in section 2(k) of the Code saying– "In this Code, unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context– “ 'land' means a portion of the earth's surface whether or not under water; and, where land is referred to in this Code, it shall be deemed to include all things attached to or permanently fastened to anything attached to such land." 4. Now, the purpose of the Code is to provide a speedy and summary remedy to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his land. No doubt, the land is fictionally meant to include even buildings on land; but it is clearly not the intent of the Code to provide a speedy and summary remedy under the Code to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his immovable property. No doubt, the land is fictionally meant to include even buildings on land; but it is clearly not the intent of the Code to provide a speedy and summary remedy under the Code to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his immovable property. The use of the word 'Bhumiswami' in connection with the land of which he is dispossessed and of which he may claim restoration of possession in section 250 of the Code clearly shows that the speedy and summary remedy provided by the Code is to be resorted to when a person, who is a Bhumiswami, is dispossessed of land which he holds in Bhumiswami rights and when the restoration of possession of such land is the dominant purpose. But, when the land is an appurtenance to the building and the dominant purpose of the plaintiff is to get restoration of possession of his building of which he alleges forcible dispossession, section 6 of the Specific Relief Act would be his appropriate remedy which provides that 'if any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit'. I may also add that buildings standing on land are fictionally made to mean land in the Code (see section 2(k) of the Code), provided there is nothing in the subject or the context, and that consequently, when the dominant purpose of a person who also happens to a Bhumiswami is to recover possession of his house of which he has been illegally dispossessed, his house cannot come within the fictional definition of the word 'land' as defined in the Code to give jurisdiction to a Tahsildar to restore him to its possession under section 250 of the Code. 5. In my opinion, the case was properly triable by the trial Court in which it was filed and in refusing to try it on the ground that the case was triable by the Tahsildar under section 250 of the Code, the trial Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The order of the learned Civil Judge is, therefore, hereby set aside and the case is remitted to him for being proceeded with and disposed of in accordance with law. 6. The revision is allowed with costs. The order of the learned Civil Judge is, therefore, hereby set aside and the case is remitted to him for being proceeded with and disposed of in accordance with law. 6. The revision is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 25, if certified.