This revision petition arises from an order of 16.5.90 of the District Judge Udaipur made in Misc. Appeal No 1 of 1990 dismi­ssing the appeal from an order of the Munsiff Udaipur passed on 6.12.1989 in Misc. Case No 24 of 1989 arising out of Title Suit No 19 of 1989. 2. In Title Suit No 19 of 1989, the plaintiff filed an applica­tion for temporary injunction under Order 39, CPC. The learned Munsiff rejected the petition. The order was appealed to the Dis­trict Judge. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition'. 3. The reason for refusal of injunction by the courts below' that, under section 9, CPC the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as cognizance the suit is expressly barred by the pro­visions of the Tripura Public Premises (Eviction of Un authorized Occupants) Act, 1982. The Courts below have decided the question as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit in' an in­terlocutory matter. 4. The question which arises for consideration is whether a Civil Court can decide its jurisdiction to try a suit in an interlo­cutory proceeding. It settled that allegations made in the plaint decide the forum. The jurisdiction does not depend upon the de­fence taken in the written statement. If any authority is required, I may refer to Abdul I a Bin Ali vs. Galappa AIR 1985 SC 577 . When a Court decides that it has no jurisdiction to try a suit, any order passed in the suitor interlocutory proceeding is of no consequence, i.e. after coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit, it cannot decide any question affecting right or inte­rest of any party either in the suit or interlocutory proceeding. That apart, if the Court decides its jurisdiction to try the suit in an interlocutory or collateral proceeding, it would affect the ma interminability of the suit which was not before it legally for decision on tin question of maintainability under section 9, CPC. Therefore, a collateral or interlocutory proceeding the Court cannot decide the question of jurisdiction to try a suit by the Civil Court. It is to be decided in the suit itself. 5. In view of the above discussion the courts below could not decide the question of jurisdiction to try the suit while refusing to can not interlocutory prohibitory injunction. Therefore, a collateral or interlocutory proceeding the Court cannot decide the question of jurisdiction to try a suit by the Civil Court. It is to be decided in the suit itself. 5. In view of the above discussion the courts below could not decide the question of jurisdiction to try the suit while refusing to can not interlocutory prohibitory injunction. Therefore, the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Court below arc set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Munsiff Udaipur for decision on the question of jurisdiction to try the suit af­resh untrammeled by the observations made by the learned Dis­trict Judge within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. However, the petitioner Sri Bijoy Kumar Chakraborty shall not be evicted by force. With the above observation and direction, the petition is all­owed and disposed of No cost.