JUDGMENT Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - This petition has been filed by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent No. 3 Zahid Husain who has died during the pendency of this petition and is represented by his heirs. The suit has had a chequered history. The issue relating to the jurisdiction of the right court which is competent to try the same has consumed in the process nearly 13 years, the parties litigating on that issue time and again. 2. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the learned Judge Small Causes, Moradabad. A written statement was filed by the defendant pleading, inter alia, that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in as much as the suit has been filed by a lessor of an open piece of land for eviction of the defendant as the lessee. Such a suit, it was contended, was triable on the regular side. This plea was, after contest by the plaintiff, answered against him and in favour of the defendant by an order dated July 8, 1978 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court, Moradabad. The learned Judge held that the lease in question was not a lease of an accommodation or building but of an open piece of land only and, consequently, the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 19i2 which came into force with effect from September 20, 1972 authorising the Small Causes courts to try a suit for possession by a lesser for the eviction of a lessee from a building after determination of the lease, was not attracted in the present case. He accordingly directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the court having jurisdiction. It is significant to note here that inspite of the fact that the learned judge noticed that certain tin-shed and kothri, etc. had been constructed over the disputed land according to the plaint itself and the further fact that the relief in respect of those structures bad been claimed it was held that the lease was in respect of an open piece of land notwithstanding the fact that, that the constructions had been subsequently raised over the same. 3. had been constructed over the disputed land according to the plaint itself and the further fact that the relief in respect of those structures bad been claimed it was held that the lease was in respect of an open piece of land notwithstanding the fact that, that the constructions had been subsequently raised over the same. 3. The petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit submitted to this order and took back the plaint and, after deleting the first relief, which was for possession over as open piece of land over part of which the aforesaid structures stood, presented the same before the learned Munsif. The defendant again raised the plea of jurisdiction and contended that in view of the detection of the first relief the suit was triable by the learned Judge Small Cause court and not by the learned Munsif. This plea was upheld by the learned Munsif who directed the return of the plaint for presentation before the Small Causes Court and the order passed by the learned Munsif was affirmed in appeal by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Moradabad. The plaintiff has, by means of this petition, assailed the validity of the last two orders as well as an order passed upon review by the plaintiff passed by the learned second Additional District Judge on January 13, 1931. 4. For the petitioner it is contended that on an interpretation of tie plaint the trial court had on the earlier occasion arrived at a very categorical finding that construction of the tin shed and kothari in the year 1;-7i notwithstanding the lease was at all material time in respect of an open lard and net any building or accommodation. The deletion of the first relief of from the plaint did not make any material difference to the issue as regards the court competent to try the suit. The said decision, it was urged, operated as res judicata against the plea raised by the petitioner that the learned Munsif has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In support, learned counsel placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court in Sarv Daman Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1986 A.L.J. 176. and Beawani Prasad and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1885 A.l.J. 176. 5. In support, learned counsel placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court in Sarv Daman Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1986 A.L.J. 176. and Beawani Prasad and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1885 A.l.J. 176. 5. For the respondent, it was contended that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or law. They have rightly arrived at the conclusion that on a true and proper construction of the plaint, the suit was triable by the Small Causes Court and not by the learned Munsif. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am clearly of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioner must be accepted. It is not disputed that the body of the plaint has remained untouched after the return of the plaint by the Small Causes Court in 1978. The only change which has been introduced therein is the deletion of the first relief which was in respect of a piece of land. The relief of possession over the kothri and the tin shed has remained the same, both on the previous occasion as well as after the presentation of the plaint before the learned Munsif. Construing the plaint and the material on the record, the learned Munsif in his judgment dated July, 1978 clearly held that the lease was in respect of land and that the position did not alter even after the construction of the kothri and the tin shed. To put the finding in the own words of the learned Judge small cause court, he observed as follows : "The result is that the tenancy which has commenced on 1.7.70 would be deemed to have continued and no fresh tenancy came into existence after the constructions were raised over the disputed land." At another place, he observed : "If the original lease is in respect of a land only and thereafter certain constructions were made on the leased land, it will not be converted into lease of an accommodation." 7. These and other observations made by the learned Judge Small Cause Court in his order dated July 8, 1978 leave no manner of doubt that according to him the suit had not been filed by a lessor against the lessee for possession over an accommodation or building. These and other observations made by the learned Judge Small Cause Court in his order dated July 8, 1978 leave no manner of doubt that according to him the suit had not been filed by a lessor against the lessee for possession over an accommodation or building. The lease on which the suit was founded was in respect of only an open piece of land not a building. I am not going into the question whether on merits this is correct or not. For the present, what is important is that the issue having once been settled between the parties, the same cannot be permitted to be raised again between the same parties on the same issue. If any authority is needed, one may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Sarv Daman Singh (supra). in that case it was held that plea of jurisdiction having once been settled between the parties cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings or suit. The same view has been expressed in other decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated August 12, 1980 (Annexure VI) passed by the learned Additional District Judge are quashed. The learned Munsif will now proceed to dispose of the suit on merits, according to law. The suit was filed in 1974. The learned Munsif should, therefore, try and dispose of the suit expeditiously, giving it a high priority. No order as to costs.