N. L. GANGULY, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the District Judge in Civil Revision by which he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, dated 24-8 1994 rejecting the plaint. 2. A suit was filed for ejectment of the petitioner from the residential accommodation consisting of some rooms etc. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is not disputed that the ac commodation was let out @ R. 500 per month and it has been stated that the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of rent from the period 1-4-1983 to 30-6-1986 when the suit was filed. It is also not disputed that the house was constructed over agricultural holding for which the respondent moved an application for declaration that the said land which was previously agricultural holding was converted and was in use as abadi land. A suit previously for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed before the Judge Small Causes Court. In the said court, a plea of jurisdiction was raised and the plaint was returned for presentation before the appropriate court. After taking the plaint back, the respondent filed the said plaint before the Munsifs court. 3. In the trial Court, an objection was |raised that the land over which the house was constructed, still continues to be an agricultural holding and unless a declaration was granted by the revenue court, the land nature would continue as agricultural holding and the civil courts would have no jurisdiction for entertaining the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. This plea was accepted by the learned Munsif and the plaint was rejected. A revision was filed against the said order before the District Judge. The District Judge allowed the revision holding the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the nature of the land still continues to be agricultural holding. It is wholly irrelevant and immaterial that the residential house has been constructed thereon. He sub mits that unless a declaration by the revenue court was granted under Section 143 of U. P. Z. A. & L. K. Act, the land continues to be agricultural land and no suit could be entertained in the civil courts. He cited a number of cases. He sub mits that unless a declaration by the revenue court was granted under Section 143 of U. P. Z. A. & L. K. Act, the land continues to be agricultural land and no suit could be entertained in the civil courts. He cited a number of cases. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited 1966 Revenue Decision page 1 Mukheshwari Prasad and another v. Ram Bali and another. In this case, the question for consideration was whether the defendant in the suit who had encroached over the agricultural holding and made construction, such a suit would be competent in the civil courts or in the revenue court. The Division Bench held that civil court cannot take cognizance of a suit for purpose of agricultural holding and for demolition of unauthorised construction standing thereon but can take cognizance of a suit merely for demolition of the unautho rised construction made on the agricultural land. 5. Another decision reported in 1965 RD 183 - Mohd. Evaj and another v. Ram Prasad and another was cited. In the said case, the learned Single Judge was also dealing with a matter in which the defendant after encroaching over, the sirdari plot of the plaintiff, had raised certain unauthorised construction. The suit was filed for recovery of possession and damages in the revenue court. The learned Single Judge was of the view that such a suit was cognizable by the revenue court. 6. Lastly a case 1968 reported in RD 470 - Ram Jyalamb v. Jata Shanker & another, was cited. This decision mainly dealing with the question about the jurisdiction of civil court and the revenue courts in suits and how to determine the jurisdiction of the courts in such a matter. The Full Bench of this court held that in each and every case, the cause of action of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinized to determine whether the suit is wholly cognizable by the revenue court or lightly cognizable only by the revenue court or is cognizable by the civil court. Further "illustrations have been given in the judgment on the above lines to arrive at a conclusion about the jurisdiction of the court. 7. Lastly, a decision in 1973 RD 365 (SC) - Chandrika Misir and others v. Bhaiya Lal, was cited. Further "illustrations have been given in the judgment on the above lines to arrive at a conclusion about the jurisdiction of the court. 7. Lastly, a decision in 1973 RD 365 (SC) - Chandrika Misir and others v. Bhaiya Lal, was cited. The Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which the plaintiff has brought the suit in respect of certain bhumidhari rights and as the next reversioner they claimed title to the property and they had prayed for permanent injunction or in the alternative the relief for possession. The Honble Supreme Court while considering the jurisdiction of the civil courts, observed: "if the suit is one properly entertainable by the civil court the period of limitation must be governed by the provisions of Limitation Act and no other. Schedule II at Serial No. 24 shows that a suit for ejection of persons occupying land without title under Section 209 should be filed in the court of the Asstt. Collector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the view that the case law cited by the learned Counsel are wholly inapplic able in the present case. As held in the Full Bench case of 1966 of our court, the jurisdiction of the Court is to be decided on the basis of the allegation made in the plaint. I have perused the plaint. The allegation in the plaint clearly makes out a case cognizable by the civil court. There is no relief for declaration in the plaint that the land be declared as bhumidhari land or land which may be used for abadi. It was a plain and simple suit for recovery of arrears of land revenue. The long drawn arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage is wholly misconceived and it is nothing but attempt to gain time. As such, I repel the submission of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, as suggested. The learned District Judge in revision considered the aspect in correct perspective of the law and arrived at a correct conclusion. 9. The learned Counsel in the end submitted that the revision was not maintainable. He submitted that a decree was prepared and a regular appeal should have been filed against the said order. The learned District Judge in revision considered the aspect in correct perspective of the law and arrived at a correct conclusion. 9. The learned Counsel in the end submitted that the revision was not maintainable. He submitted that a decree was prepared and a regular appeal should have been filed against the said order. He placed the provision of Order XLIII, Rule 1 of C. P. C. and submitted that the order rejecting the plaint was not appealable. Thus, the revision was entertained by the learned District Judge, in accordance with law. This argument was not advanced in the court below nor there is any appeal provided in the Act against such rejec tion. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a decree was prepared, as such, it shall be deemed that it shall be final decree and a regular appeal under Section 96, C. P. C. should have been filed. 10. In each and every case, such a formal order is prepared and this is not to ground which may call for interference under Article 266 of the Constitution. 11. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, I do not find any merit in the submission. 12. The writ petition do not call for any interference and is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed. .