( 1 ) THIS revision petition preferred by the plaintiff in OS. 220 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Coondapur, S. Kanara, is directed against the order made in the said suit on 13-10-1974 holding that the Civil Court, in view of the provisions of Karnataka Act 31 of 1974, has no jurisdiction to make an order of temporary injunction and that the issue of tenancy if raised by the tenant-defendant, has to be referred to the Tribunal and the suit should be stayed. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the owner of the suit land, which is admittedly an agricultural land. The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's alleged possession. His case is that the defendant is threatening to trespass on the suit land. The defendant filed a written statement contending, inter alia that he is the tenant of the suit land and that he is not a trespasser. In the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for a temporary injunction. The learned munsiff made the order under revision holding that in view of S. 3 of karnataka Act 31 of 1974, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to make an interim order of injunction and all that it has to do is to stay the suit and refer the issue of tenancy to the competent Tribunal. ( 3 ) IN a large number of suits the learned Munsiff (Sri S. Iqbal Ahamed) has made similar orders. Therefore, this revision petition was entertained and heard along with other similar revision petitions. In the suit an order of temporary injunction had been made on 16-6-1973 and it was continued till 15-10-1974 when the learned Munsiff vacated it holding that no order of temporary injunction can be issued by the Court when the defendant raises a plea of tenancy. ( 4 ) THE relevant section that has a bearing on the question raised is S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), as amended by Karnataka Acts 1 and 31 of 1974. ( 4 ) THE relevant section that has a bearing on the question raised is S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), as amended by Karnataka Acts 1 and 31 of 1974. Sub-sec (2) (a) of S. 133 of the Act states that " if any suit instituted in any Civil Court involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided Of dealt with by the, tribunal or any suit is instituted in any such Court for possession of or injunction in respect of an agricultural land on the allegation that the defendant has trespassed or is trying to trespass on such land and the, defendant denies the said allegation and claims that he is in possession on the strength of a tenancy existing from prior to 1st March 1974, then the Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues or the claim, as the case may be, to the Tribunal for decision". So according to sub-sec (2) (a) of S. 133, the the Civil Court has to stay the suit and refer the, issue regarding tenancy to the Tribunal for decision. S. 4 of Karnataka Act 31 of 1974, which provides for disposal of certain pending proceedings in the manner indicated therein, states that " notwithstanding anything in any law, no Civil Court shall grant temporary injunction in respect of an agricultural land except after service; of notice of the application for the same on the defendant". ( 5 ) IF the intention of the Legislature was that no order of temporary injunction shall be issued by the Civil Court, then the wording of Sec. 4 would have been entirely different. All that it states is that no Civil Court shall grant temporary injunction in respect of an agricultural land except after service of notice of the application for the same on the defendant. To put the. Section in a positive, form, the Civil Court may grant a temporary injunction in respect of an agricultural land after service of notice of the application on the defendant. The Court has to exqrcise its discretion when it issues an order of temporary injunction. There is no prohibition against the Civil Court making an order of temporary injunction. All that has to be stayed is the trial of the suit. The Court has to exqrcise its discretion when it issues an order of temporary injunction. There is no prohibition against the Civil Court making an order of temporary injunction. All that has to be stayed is the trial of the suit. It is conceivable that the subject- matter of the suit may have to be protected against waste or damage. Let me suppose that the subject-matter of the suit is a valuable arecanut garden. If one of the parties is threatening to cut the trees and damage the garden, can it be sa,id that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to make an order of temporary injunction? The Tribunal constituted under the Act has no power to grant an order of temporary injunction or to appoint a Receiver or to make any order to project the interests of the party that may ultimately succeed. In these circumstances, to hold that the Civil Court has no power to make an order of temporary injunction in view of the provisions of the Act as amended by Act 31 of 1974, will lead to results which are never contemplated by the Legislature. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The Court below has to dispose of the application for temporary injunction in accordance with law. It is open to the Court below to make an order appointing a Receiver in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in kamala Handthy v. Ananthayya Hebbar, 1974 2 Karlj. 34, the Court below shall apply its mind as to whether the subject-matter of the suit is an agricultural land, and if there is prima facie evidence to show that it is an agricultural land to which the Act applies, then after hearing the parties, it may refer the issue of tenancy to the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .