JUDGMENT S. N. Jha, J. - The plaintiff-petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 217 of 1966 for redemption of a mortgage of the year 1940 and recovery of possession of the land. The suit has been held to be not maintainable on the ground that the mortgage stands redeemed after expiry of 7 years under Section 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 ('the Act' in short). 2. Counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding regarding redemption and non-maintainability of the suit to that extent. He, however, contended that the suit in so far as it relates to the claim for recovery of possession is maintainable. The only question for consideration in this civil revision is whether a mortgagor of usufructuary mortgage is entitled to maintain suit for recovery of possession of the mortgaged land in view of the provisions of the said Act. 3. Two well established propositions of law may briefly be noticed at the outset. One, that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try suits of a civil nature can be excluded either by express words or by necessary implication; and two, that where a statute creates a new right and liability and also prescribes special remedy for the enforcement of such rights, then that remedy alone is to be availed of to the exclusion of the remedy which is available under the ordinary law. It is not necessary to dwell upon these aspects in detail but in order to make this judgment complete I would like to refer to some of the authorities. As early as 1931, in the case of Doe Bridges (1831) (1) B & Ad. 847, Lord Tenterden, C. J. stated: Where the Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner, we take it to be a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner: Willes, J. in the celebrated case of Wol-verhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford : 1859 6 (C. B.) (N. S.) 336 making classification of different types of cases said : The third class is where the statute creates a liability not existing at common law and gives also a particular remedy for enforcing it ..... With respect to that class it has always been held that the party must adopt the form of remedy given by the statute. With respect to that class it has always been held that the party must adopt the form of remedy given by the statute. In the case of Firm Seth Radha Krishna v. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana : AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1547, it was stated : A statute, therefore, expressly or by necessary implication, can bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of a particular matter. The mere conferment of a special jurisdiction on a Tribunal in respect of the said matter docs not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts. The statute may specifically provide for ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts even if there was no such special exclusion, if it creates a liability not existing before and gives a special and particular remedy for the aggrieved party, the remedy provided by it must be followed. The same principle would apply if the statute had provided for the particular forum in which the said remedy could be had. It is not necessary to cite other decisions on the point about which there is no controversy. 4. At this stage Section 12 of Act, omitting the Explanation part, may be noticed : "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or anything having the force of law or in any agreement, the principal amount and all dues in respect of an usufructuary mortgage relating to any agricultural land, whether executed before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been fully satisfied and mortgage shall be deemed to have been wholly redeemed on expiry of a period of seven years from the date of the execution of the mortgage bond in respect of such land and the mortgagor shall be entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged land in the manner prescribed under the rules : Provided that if the mortgage bond had been executed before the commencement of this Act nothing in this section shall entitle the mortgagor to claim any accounts or profits from the mortgagee by the reason of the benefit of redemption of the mortgage under this provision." The section provides for automatic redemption of all usufructuary mortgages on expiry of the period of seven years. It entitles the mortgagor to recover possession of the mortgaged land in the manner prescribed under the Rules. It entitles the mortgagor to recover possession of the mortgaged land in the manner prescribed under the Rules. A perusal of Rules 9 and 10 of the Bihar Money Lenders Rules, 1977 would show that a complete machinery has been provided for obtaining possession of the mortgaged property. It would, thus, appear that while under the ordinary law the mortgage continues to subsist indefinitely until the dues are paid to the mortgagee and mortgagor is entitled to recover possession by taking recourse to proceeding or suit under the Transfer of Property Act or Bihar Tenancy Act, Section 12 creates a new right in favour of the mortgagor whereunder all dues in respect or the usufructuary mortgage are deemed to be fully satisfied on expiry of the stipulated period of seven years from the date of execution of the mortgage bond entitling the mortgagor to. recover possession of the property as per the special• procedure laid down under Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules. The Act read with the Rules not only creates a right but also• a forum for enforcement of that right. There is no doubt in my mind, therefore, that the remedy for enforcement of any such right lies before the forum created by the Act and not under the ordinary law. The provisions contained in Section 12 read with the rules prescribed in that behalf must be construed as having excluded the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant such relief by necessary implication. 5. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Sheo Shankar Bharti v. Smt. Kusmni Devi : 1986 PUR 1ll5. In that case suit for redemption and possession filed by. the. mortgagor in the year 1968 was dismissed on the ground that the relief could not be granted against proforma defendants who were found to be in possession of the mortgaged land. This Court held that since the proforma defendants were alleged to be statutory mortgagees and the relief of recovery of possession had been sought not only against the defendant-first party but also against anyone who is found to be in possession, the suit could not have been dismissed on such ground. This Court held that since the proforma defendants were alleged to be statutory mortgagees and the relief of recovery of possession had been sought not only against the defendant-first party but also against anyone who is found to be in possession, the suit could not have been dismissed on such ground. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following observation in paragraph 5 of the judgment : "The result, therefore is that the mortgage stood redeemed and the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession from the defendant-second party..... " It would appear that the aforesaid observation was made in the context of the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover possession from proforma defendant-second party. The question as to whether the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and Rules framed thereunder amounts to ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court or not was not considered and decided in that case. As a matter of fact, in the same very paragraph the learned Judge observed while discussing the provisions of Section 12 : “A procedure has also been laid for speedy recovery of possession of the mortgaged land under the Act." The decision, therefore, in my view, is of no avail to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. The State of Bihar: 1980 BLJ 470 relied upon by the counsel .for the opposite party, a Division Bench of this Court made the following observations : "Without filing a suit the mortgagors can get the relief of recovery of possession under Sec. 12 of the Act. The Act lays down a complete machinery in itself. In Chapter IV of the Bihar Money Lender Rules, 1975, a complete procedure has been laid down as to the manner in which recovery of possession can be made in respect of a mortgaged land." It was held that the provision of Section 12 is a special law and it will prevail over the provisions of any other enactment in force and that the provisions of the Civil Procedure "Code, Court-Fees Act or any other enactment shall apply for the limited purpose for which these enactments arc mentioned in the Act or the Rules. 7. In my considered opinion, therefore, the question posed for consideration has to be answered in the negative. 7. In my considered opinion, therefore, the question posed for consideration has to be answered in the negative. It is held that after coming into force of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974, by reason of Section 12 of the Act and rules framed thereunder, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for redemption of mortgage and/or recovery of mortgaged property by the mortgagor is not maintainable. The position, however, in so far as mortgagee is concerned would be different. An appropriate suit at his instance will lie in the civil court (see 1992 (2) PUR 815). 8. This application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.