JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J. - This is plaintiff's appeal. In brief the case set up by the plaintiffs as appearing from the plaint filed on November 13, 1975 is as follows : - The plaintiffs are the bhumidhars of plot no 72 referred to by letters ABCDEF in the sketch map appended to the plaint. The parties had a house over the land. There was a partition among the brothers. The plaintiffs raised a use shown by letters cha cha ja jha in the said sketch-map. In part of the land there is found-pi laid but no construction could be made. Towards south east the plaintiffs also acquired me land by purchased and that too has been Alluded in the house raised. There are certain tress as well standing on the land. In or about November, 1975, the defendants forcibly usurped the possession over the room described by letters Ta Tha Ja Ya and closed the door Staining to a kothari. The defendant, it is further alleged, also raised a Madai over the part of the land. The relief claimed upon these allegations is permanent injunction both mandatory and prohibitory besides demolition of the construction claimed to have been raised by the defendant without authority and the restoration 'possession. 2. In defence to the suit an objection was raised, inter alia, from the side of the defendant to the effect that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit. This objection was over-ruled by the trial court which gave its finding in favour of the plaintiff on the point in its judgment dated December 23, 1977. In appeal by the defendant again the objection was raised which has this time been acceded by the judgment dated October 16, 1978. The plaint has been directed to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. 3. Aggrieved the plaintiffs have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants urged in the first place that in view of sub-section (I-A) of section 331 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the appellate court could not entertain the objection raised on the point of jurisdiction without there being a finding to the effect that there has been consequent failure of justice resulting due to the trial court having decided the issue other-way round. This subsection is, it will be noticed along the lines of Section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. It is true that there was objection, raised on this score from the side of the defendant respondent at the earliest opportunity and also adjudicated by the trial court but all the same the lower appellate court does not indicate that there has been consequent failure of justice resulting due to the finding recorded as it is by the trial court. The mere fact that the defendant-respondent has had to fight out this matter in the civil court instead of being decided by the revenue court, in my view constitute a failure of justice. I find support with this view from two recent Division Bench decisions reported in Sabha Chand v. Narain Singh, 1981 A.W.C. 161 and Baldeo v. Beni Madhau Kadar and others, 1981 All. C.J. 148. 5. The other contention for the appellants is that even if the issue were to be gone into merit, it may not be said that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. I have referred already to the pith and substance all the averments contained in the plaint. The plaintiffs no doubt contend that they are the bhumidhars of plot. No. 72 but then they have also satisfy that they had raised the house over the substantial part of that plot and that the defendant has without authority usurp possession over a building portion and also set up certain construction. The relief sought for is demolition besides injunction etc. The cause of action upon looking into the crux of the plaint would be said to be such as can be taken cognisance of by the civil court rather than the revenue court. In view of the Explanation to section 331(1) where the cause of action is such that the suit lies in the civil court, it is of no consequence that the relief asked for includes in part such relief also as can be accorded by the revenue court. 6. For these reasons, the appeal in my opinion succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The order passed by the lower appellate court dated 16th October, 1978 is set aside. 6. For these reasons, the appeal in my opinion succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The order passed by the lower appellate court dated 16th October, 1978 is set aside. The lower appellate court is directed to proceed with and decide expeditiously the civil appeal No. 43 of 1978 upon merits and in accordance with law after hearing the parties. Costs on parties.