A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Fifth Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in C. S. No. 97-A of 1987 dated 27. 7. 90 whereby the learned Additional judge has decided issues Nos. 6 and 7 in favour of the plaintiff/non-applicant. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision petition, in short, are that the applicant-defendant is a registered Co-operative Society, registered under under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The non-applicant/plaintiff was allotted a plot of land belonging to the Society. The plot was No. 112, given on lease to the plaintiff for 99 years on which the plaintiff constructed his home. Another plot No 113 was allotted to another member of the society by the aforesaid Co-operative Society. He also constructed a house on the plot. Between these two plots there is open land measuring 30 X 67. 5" which according to the Society is of the ownership of the Society. The plaintiff-non-applicant had made application from time to time for allotment of the some open land to him. But when it was not so alloted, he forceably encroached upon that land and put the fencing around that land. Therefore, on 8. 2. 1980 the Society asked the non-applicant to remove the fencing and the society also initiated proceedings against the non-applicant for removal of encroachment, where upon the non-applicant for removal of encroachment, where upon the non-applicant approached the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore under Section 64 of the m P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit an application seeking the stay of the proceedings for removing the encroachment was also sought which was not allowed by the Dy Registrar, against which the non-applicant filed appeal before the Joint Registrar, but in vain. Then he approached the M. P. Revenue Board by filing appeal No. 382 of 80 which was also dismissed by order dated 27. 1. 1981. Then the non-applicant-plaintiff filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which was registered as M. P. No. 1826/86 in this Court which was also finally dismissed. Then he approached the M. P. Revenue Board by filing appeal No. 382 of 80 which was also dismissed by order dated 27. 1. 1981. Then the non-applicant-plaintiff filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which was registered as M. P. No. 1826/86 in this Court which was also finally dismissed. Thus, having failed to obtain the relief of stay from the courts stated above the plaintiff filed a civil suit in the civil court which was registered as C. S-No 97-A of 87 seeking the same relief about the same property ( 3 ) ALONG with the suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed, but that was not granted to the non-applicant and the order was maintained by the High Court also. During the trial of the suit issues were framed and issues Nos. 6 and 7 were tried as preliminary issues The Court decided the preliminary issues on the basis of averments in the plaint. What weighed with the lower court is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted by the provisions contained in Section 64 (6) read with Section 82 (1) of the Act. Hence this revision petition. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed before me that the suit filed under section 64 of the Act before the Deputy Registrar is still pending before that Court. The revision was kept pending before this Court and opportunities were afforded to the non-applicant to decide whether he wants to proceed with the suit or wants to continue with the civil suit. The non-applicants has stated before this Court by application I A. No. 1372 of 1993 that he has withdrawn the suit before the Deputy Registrar, but the order granting permission of withdrawal is a conditional order, however the fact remains that the case has been closed before the Deputy Registrar. About the conditions he has filed an appeal to the Joint Registrar. In the aforesaid circumstances now, only the civil suit survives. ( 5 ) AS regards the merits also arguments were advanced elaborating the facts of the case and authorities were cited both the sides. But in my opinion the issue about the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be decided without first ascertaining the ownership of the land. In the aforesaid circumstances now, only the civil suit survives. ( 5 ) AS regards the merits also arguments were advanced elaborating the facts of the case and authorities were cited both the sides. But in my opinion the issue about the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be decided without first ascertaining the ownership of the land. It is true that the non-applicant initially had requested the Society to allot him the land in question, but now the non-applicants's stand is that the land does not belong to the society. Prima facie this fact finds support from the order of allotment itself which says that open land on the northern side of the plot No. 112 belongs to the P. W D. The plea of the society is that this land wa given to the society alongwith other lands, but the recital in the document i. e the land deed and the plea of the society have to be considered and first this controversy has to be resolved whether the land belongs to the society or to the Public Works department. It is a question of fact which can be decided only after taking the necessary evidence on record. Therefore, after ascertaining this factual position the question about the jurisdiction of the civil court has to be decided afresh because if the lard not belong to the society then a question about the dispute between the member and the society does not arise in respect of a land which belongs to the P. W. D. on which the encroachment might have been made by the non-applicant. But if the land belongs to the Society, then the question would be whether the Society can get the encroachment removed under the provisions of the Act Therefore, the learned trial court has erred in deciding this issue as a preliminary issue without first deciding the issue whether the land belongs to the Society or not. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed. The case is sent back to the lower Court with a direction that the lower court shall first decide, this question whether the land belongs to the society or not and then decide the question of jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed. The case is sent back to the lower Court with a direction that the lower court shall first decide, this question whether the land belongs to the society or not and then decide the question of jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs The parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 19 8. 94. Revision petition allowed. .