ORDER J.S. Trivedi, J. - This Defendants' Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree of the learned Munsif. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Respondents for an injunction restraining the Defendant-Appellants from interfering with their possession over the plots in dispute. 2. The suit was contested by the Defendent-Appellants on the ground that the Defendant-Appellants were a co-Bhumidhars of the plots in dispute and that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. Plea of non-joinder of Gaon Sahba and State of U.P. was also taken. The learned Munsif negatived the Defendants' contention that they were co-Bhumidhars. The learned Munsif further held that the suit being a simple suit for injunction was cognizable by the Civil Court. In appeal the lower appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial court, hence this Second Civil Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the suit in substance was a suit for declaration of the Plaintiff's right and as such was not cognizable by the Civil Court in view of Section 331 ZA Act. He has placed his reliance on Sugrim v. Saraswati 1971 AWR 85. 4. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Respondent has contended that the suit being of an injunction simplicitor was cognizable by the Civil Court. Reliance has been placed by him on Himmat Singh v. Channoo Lal 1964 AWR 283 wherein it has been laid down that for determining the jurisdiction it was necessary to find whether such a suit could have been filed in a Revenue Court and if the answer was in the negative the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar 1968 AWR 731 is also to the effect that the principal relief sought would be the determining factor for deciding the jurisdiction of the Court. 5. Section 331 of the ZA Act was amended by U.P. Act 4 of 1969. By the amendment Sub-section (1-A) was added. Sub-section (1-A) is in these words: Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (1), an objection that a Court mentioned in col. 5. Section 331 of the ZA Act was amended by U.P. Act 4 of 1969. By the amendment Sub-section (1-A) was added. Sub-section (1-A) is in these words: Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (1), an objection that a Court mentioned in col. 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a Civil Court, which has no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional Court unless the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 6. The scope of the amendment is wide enough to cover all cases which have been finally decided and in which the appeal is pending in this Court. The case relied by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Sugrim v. Saraswati (supra) is distinguishable. In that case the appeal was disposed of on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction and when the case came up before this Court in Second Appeal the question for determination only was whether the Civil Court or the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to decide the case. That was clearly a case where the judgment could not be based on the second part of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 331. 7. A Bench of this Court in Sheo Dulare v. Smt. Ram Rati S.C.A. No. 464 of 1964 while considering the effect of the amendment has rightly observed that: Further, even if it be assumed that the Appellants were entitled to reagitate the question of jurisdiction in the Second Appeal it cannot sucoeed and the Court cannot look into the merits of the jurisdiction unless the Appellants first satisfy the Court that there has been a consequent failure of justice. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to show anything from which it can be inferred that there has been a failure of justice and there is nothing in the ground to justify that there has been any failure of justice simply because the case was tried on merits by the Civil Court. 9. This appeal, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.