JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is plaintiff's revision arising out of an application made for grant of a temporary injunction which was granted by the trial court but rejected by the appellate court. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit for the same relief in a revenue court and after withdrawing the same filed the present suit. The defendants have raised an objection herein that the suit is not cognizable by a civil court and can be tried only by a revenue court. The trial court granted the temporary injunction without considering this objection raised by the defendants regarding jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit. The appellate court rightly pointed out this lapse of the trial court in not considering the objection relating to jurisdiction of the civil court. However, the appellate court after taking the view that the suit was not cognizable by the civil court but was triable by a revenue court alone proceeded to consider the application for temporary injunction on merits also and rejected the same. I am informed that the suit is still continuing in the trial court. 2. In my opinion, the appellate court after taking the view that the suit was triable only by a revenue court and not by a civil court could not thereafter proceed to consider the other points on merits, or permit the trial of the suit in the trial court. This is inconsistent with the finding of want of jurisdiction in the civil court. Moreover, the finding even on the question of jurisdiction, which has been recorded by the appellate court is vague and perfunctory, and does not take into account the reasons on the basis of which the plaintiff claims that the suit is cognizable by a civil court. In such a situation, the proper course to be adopted by the appellate court was to direct the trial court to decide the question of jurisdiction at the outset before considering any other point on merits taking into account the rival contentions on the point. The occasion for deciding any point on merits raised in the suit can arise only after the conclusion is reached that the suit is cognizable by a civil court, which has not been held so far by any of the two courts below. In my opinion, this alone is sufficient to set aside the orders passed by the two courts below. 3. In my opinion, this alone is sufficient to set aside the orders passed by the two courts below. 3. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court on the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction are set aside. The trial court shall proceed to decide the question of jurisdiction at the outset and it shall thereafter consider and decide the other points raised in the suit as well as in the application for temporary injunction on the basis of finding recorded on the question of jurisdiction.No costs.Revision Partly allowed. *******