JUDGMENT H.N. Tilhari, J. - This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 1841992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sitapur, dismissing the petitioner's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, whereby the petitioner has challenged the revisional court's order dated 1841992, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has refused to interfere with order dated 2651990 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court (I A.C.J.M.) Sitapur in SCC Suit No. 37/89, whereby the learned J. SCC directed return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court, exercising its jurisdiction under Sec. 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 2. The landlordpetitioners had filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendantrespondent after terminating his tenancy and alleged in the plaint that they are the owners and landlords of the disputed property. The suit was contested by the defendant who took the plea in the written statement that the defendant had purchased the suit property and that defendant and his sons are in continuous possession of the property in dispute as owners thereof since long, as well as on the basis of long standing continuous possession thereof to the knowledge of all, have, in alternative acquired title on the basis of long uninterrupted adverse possession. The learned trial court i.e. Judge Small Cause Court, having considered the matter as involving complicated question of title requiring to be investigated and determined, acting in exercise of its power under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act returned the plaint for presentation to proper, competent Civil Court. The plaintiffpetitioner preferred revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the said revision after having taken the view that the order of trial court passed under Section 23 of the Act did not suffer either from any error of jurisdiction or of law and was one passed according to law, as under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act it is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Judge Small Causes to order return of plaint to plaintiff under Section 23 of the Act if it is of the opinion that suit involves in itself a complicated question of title to be determined. 3. 3. The petitioner i.e. plaintiff has filed this Writ Petition challenging the orders of J. SCC passed under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act and that of Additional District Judge in Revision under Section 25 of the Act refusing to interfere with the order of trial court. 4. I have heard Shri S.P. Dubey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through Writ Petition. 5. Shri S.P. Dubey has contended that defendant had not filed any saledeed or document and any evidence of title and, therefore, there was no cause for the trial court to return the plaint. The argument of the learned Counsel ignores the stage of Section 23. Section 23 stage is that when plea comes up before the court by way of pleadings i.e. plaint and written statement. From the perusal of pleadings, if the trial court comes to the conclusion, and in its opinion, the case involves an issue or question of title which is complicated one and that the best course is to direct the return of the plaint for the same being decided the question of title and to pass decree for possession i.e Civil Court, It is within the jurisdiction and power & discretion of trial court under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court to return the plaint for being filed in competent Civil Court. In this view of matter and state of law the trial court did neither commit any error of law or jurisdiction in directing the return of plaint to plaintiff, nor did the revisional court fail to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 25, if and when it dismissed the revision as the decision of the trial court cannot be termed as not to be in accordance with law. Thus considered I find that the orders impugned do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or error of law apparent on the face of record. The writ petition, as such, is dismissed in limine. (Petition dismissed.)