JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. -This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for injunction. 2. The trial court decreed the suit by issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the plaintiffs possession over the trees in suit. The lower appellate court modified the decree by limiting the injunction to the trees standing on the old plot No. 491/3, as shown in the Commissioners map which is paper No. 56-C on the record. 3. The main question raised by Mr. Jagdish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, was that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This question arises this way. Before consolidation of holdings in village Gaighat, Tappa Dubkhera, Per-gana Nagar Purab, Tahsil and district Basti, plot No. 491/1 had three sub-divisions, i. e., 491/1, 491/2 and 491/3. According to C. H. Form No. 2-A, Ext. 10, plots Nos. 491/1 and 491/2 were cultivated and the defendants were their tenure-holders, while the plaintiff was the tenure-holder of plot No. 491/3, which is a grove. It is undisputed that plot No. 491/3 became Chak No. 287 while plots Nos. 491/1 and 491/2 became Chak No. 272, and according to the final record of rights, prepared by the consolidation authorities, the defendants were the tenure-holders of Chak No. 272 while the plaintiff was the tenure-holder of Chak No. 287. It, however, appears that in the map, prepared by the consolidation authorities, the position of Chak No. 287, which was the new number given to plot No. 491/3, was wrongly shown, although within old plot No. 491/1, with the result that most of the trees of the grove fell outside Chak No. 287, as demarcated by the consolidation authorities, and that this was so has been found as a fact by both the courts below on the basis of the survey Commissioner's report and the map prepared by him, the map, being paper number 56-C on the record. It was the plaintiffs case that taking advantage of this mistake, the defendants interfered in his possession over the trees. The plaintiff had, before filing the suit, applied to the Collector concerned for correction of the map after the close of the consolidation operations. By an order dated 29th July, 1964 Ext. It was the plaintiffs case that taking advantage of this mistake, the defendants interfered in his possession over the trees. The plaintiff had, before filing the suit, applied to the Collector concerned for correction of the map after the close of the consolidation operations. By an order dated 29th July, 1964 Ext. A-l, the Additional Collector dismissed the plaintiffs application on the ground that the map had become final and conclusive under S. 28 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and that he had no jurisdiction to correct it. The plaintiff then filed the suit giving rise to the present second appeal. 4. As noted above, the only question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. What Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act lays down is that "the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of the land ............or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." 5. It is the adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land or adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, for which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on the consolidation authorities by Section 49 thereof. That does not, however, take away the jurisdiction inherent in a Civil Court to see in case of the present kind whether the consolidation authorities had prepared the map in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. That does not, however, take away the jurisdiction inherent in a Civil Court to see in case of the present kind whether the consolidation authorities had prepared the map in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Section 27 of that Act requires the consolidation authorities to prepare, for each village, a new map, field-book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area, on the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected under Section 7, the Khasra-chakbandi, the annual register prepared under Section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made and issued in with the provisions of the Act. It has been found in the present case that the boundaries of Chak Nos. 287 and 272, shown by the consolidation authorities in the map prepared by them, did not accord with the record of rights prepared by them, it being undisputed that the old plot No. 491/3 was a grove and was allotted to the plaintiff, while the old plots Nos. 491/1 and 491/2 were not grove land and were allotted to the defendants. Indeed, sub-s. (2) of S. 27 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act lays down that all entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. This shows that even the presumption of correctness of the record of rights prepared by the consolidation authorities is rebuttable. There is no such presumption of correctness with regard to the map. Section 49 of the Act also speaks of the rights of tenure-holders to land. It is plain that if the map does not accord with the record of rights, the error could certainly be corrected by the revenue authorities after the close of the consolidation operations. However, the Collector concerned having refused to exercise his jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant the plaintiff relief in accordance with the rights of the parties as finally adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities, cannot be said to be barred by anything contained in Section 27 or 48 or 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Civil Court can read the map as it ought to have been drawn rather than as it is a proof of mistake in its drawing by the consolidation authorities, and to grant relief accordingly. This is so because in the absence of a positive bar, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and decide all civil procedure, and in the absence of any specific law on the point, according to the justice, equity and good conscience under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. It is undisputed in the present case that the map, prepared by the consolidation authorities, was wrong inasmuch as it did not accord with the record of rights prepared by them. It is the first maxim of equity that equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. It is also one of the maxims of equity that the courts look on that which ought to be done as done. The Civil Court could, therefore, read the map as it ought to have been prepared by the consolidation authorities and grant relief to the plaintiff on the basis of the record of rights as finally prepared by the consolidation authorities. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is fed with costs.