JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- This is a plaintiff's writ petition against the order of the revisional court dated 21st August, 1980. 2. This writ petition arises out of a suit for permanent injunction, demolition and possession over the disputed land. One of the pleas raised in the suit is that the Civil Court cannot take cognizance of suit. The trial court did not accept the plea raised on behalf of the defendants as is evident from the order dated 3.9 1979 contained in Annexure 2' attached with the writ petition. Against the order of the Trial Court the defendants went in revision which has been allowed by the revisional court and it has been held that the suit is cognisable by the revenue court. Therefore, the Trial Court was directed to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court the plaintiff has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. After going through the allegations in the plaint as well as the allegations in the written statement I think that the trial court was court in holding that the civil court has jurisdiction to proceed with the suit whereas the revisional court has patently erred in taking contrary view. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has invited my attention to the ruling reported in AIR 1968 All. page 363 (FB) Raja Ram Verma v. State of U.P. and others, and he has emphasised paragraph 6 of the aforesaid ruling in support of his contention that the revisional court was right in holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. 5. To my mind the aforesaid ruling has no direct bearing upon the facts and circumstances of the present case. Relevant ruling which deals with the question under consideration is reported in 1963 ALJ page 1108 Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar. The perusal of the latter ruling would indicate that the question of jurisdiction should be decided on facts of each case. In the present case I think that the real relief claimed by the plaintiff is about demolition injunction and possession. If the relief of demolition and injunction is granted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's possession will automatically follow. The relief of possession in the present case appears to me anciallary relief. In the present case I think that the real relief claimed by the plaintiff is about demolition injunction and possession. If the relief of demolition and injunction is granted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's possession will automatically follow. The relief of possession in the present case appears to me anciallary relief. The main relief is of demolition and injunction. In 1968 ALJ page 1108 at 1123 (col. 2), it has been observed as below:- "......... ........ (b) the main relief is cognizible by the civil court the suit would be cognizible by the civil court only and the ancillary reliefs, which could court revenue court may also be granted by the civil court. We are also of the view that the above principle will apply also to a suit tor injunction and demolition relating to agricultural land and against a trespasser. With great respect to Hon'ble Judges who took a different view it is not possible for us to arrive at the conclusion that as against trespassers the main relief must always be that of possession only. ..... ......" 6. In the present case I have a feeling that the real relief claimed by the plaintiff is about permanent injunction and demolition and the relief of possession is ancillary relief. Therefore, the Trial court was right in holding that the suit was cognisable by the civil court and the revisional court has patently erred in taking a contrary view. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 21.1.1980 is hereby quashed and the case if sent back to the Trail court for proceeding with the suit in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.