JUDGMENT D. S. Sinha. J. 1. Heard Sri R. R. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I. N. Singh learned counsel representing the contesting respondents, at length and in detail. 2. The plaint of Civil Suit no. 348 of 1973, instituted in the court of Munsif Gyanpur. was directed to be returned by the learned Munsif vide his order and judgment dated 17th October, 1984 on the ground that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit which was a suit for injunction in respect of an agricultural land and cognizable by revenue court. The order and judgment of the learned Munsif was appealed against and the appellate court upheld the same. The matter was then agitated before this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 15223 of 1981, Ram Autar and others v. Civil Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi and others. At the time of hearing of the said writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950, reliance whereupon was placed by the courts below, did not apply. The learned counsel conceded that the matter would be governed by the provisions of the Banaras State Tenancy Act (Act no. Ill of 1949), hereinafter called the Act. Since the courts below had not examined the question of maintenance of the suit in the civil court In the light of the provisions of the Act, this court, while quashing the appellate order, remitted the matter to the appellate court for a fresh decision. 3. The appellate court has, after examining the matter at length, found that the suit is not cognizable by the civil court, and by means of its order and judgment dated 17th October. 1984 confirmed the order of the trial court directing return of the plaint. Hence this petition. 4. It is not disputed that the provisions of the Act are applicable and the question with regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit of the petitioners has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the said Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. hereinafter called the Code, envisages that the civil counts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. hereinafter called the Code, envisages that the civil counts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. One It is demonstrated that its jurisdiction to take cognizance of any category of suits is either expressly or impliedly outsted the civil courts will loose competence to try a suit falling that category. What this court has, therefore, to see as to whether there is any such exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of the suit instituted by the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the suit instituted by the petitioners is a suit for injunction envisaged by section 153 of the Act. 6. Section 214 of the Act provides; that subject to the provisions of section 249 all suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule of the Act shall be heard and determined by a revenue court and no court other than a revenue court shall except by way of appeal or revision as provided by the Act, take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on the cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. The suit for injunction under section 153 of the Act finds mention at SI. No. 8 under the heading 'Group A Suits' of the Third Schedule of the Act. It is, thus, clear that the suit In question could be taken cognizance of by revenue court only and Jurisdiction of other court is expressly barred. The Civil Courts derive jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit under section 9 of the Code It is because of the provisions of this section that the civil courts have jurisdiction to try all the suits of civil nature except the suit of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Section 215 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Code, except the provisions contained in List I of the First Schedule of the Act, shall apply to the dispute covered by the Act. List I of the First Schedule unambigously says that section 9 of the code shall not apply to the suits of the proceedings under the Act. List I of the First Schedule unambigously says that section 9 of the code shall not apply to the suits of the proceedings under the Act. 7. In view of the discussion contained in the preceding paragraphs, it is apparent that the Jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain the suit of the petitioners for Injunction in respect of agricultural land governed by the Act is expressly barred. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. The impugned order of the trial court directing the return of the plaint of the suit of the petitioners, upheld by the appellate court, is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.