M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) IN this revision petition the order dated 28-11-1992 passedby the Principal Munsiff, Buntwal, on LA. No. XVII in O. S. No. 146 of 1980 has been challenged. The learned Munsiff observing that the suit should be stayed till the disposal of C. P. No. 3073 of 1991 involving tenancy in respect of Survey No. 59/11 of sangabettu Village by this Court allowed the application, i. e. , la. No. XVII, filed under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land reforms Act and stayed further proceedings in the suit pending disposal of the civil petition. ( 3 ) THE facts are : O. S. No. 146 of 1980 has been filed byjwalini Amma and others against the respondent/defendant No. 1 and others for permanent injunction in respect of various lands. So far as Survey Nos. 59/11 and 6-A are concerned the plaintiffs have sought mandatory injunction to restore the channel existed in those survey numbers to its original condition on the ground that it has been spoiled by defendant No. 1 and others. In the suit LA. No. XVII has been filed by the respondent/defendant No. 1 under Section 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act to stay further proceedings in the suit. The learned Munsiff, as already stated above, allowed the application and stayed further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the civil petition by this Court. ( 4 ) SECTION 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act says thatno Civil or Criminal Court or Officer or Authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land. ( 5 ) IN the instant case no agricultural land or tenancy of theland is involved. In fact, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners concedes that there is no dispute regarding the tenancy of the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11 and that occupancy rights have been granted to the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11. However, the occupancy rights granted to the respondent are subject to 'mamool rights'. In fact, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners concedes that there is no dispute regarding the tenancy of the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11 and that occupancy rights have been granted to the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11. However, the occupancy rights granted to the respondent are subject to 'mamool rights'. The revision petitioners pray for mandatory injunction in respect of the channel which runs, among other survey numbers, through survey No. 59/11 and 59/6-A (Survey No. 59/6-A is not involved any tenancy ). As already stated the revision petitioners concedes the tenancy of the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11. No question of tenancy arises in this case. ( 6 ) WHEN, in the nature of the relief claimed for (mandatoryinjunction), tenancy is not at all involved, the learned Munsiff has committed a serious error in staying further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the civil petition by this Court. Further, the suit is of the year 1980. For one reason or other the suit has been hanging fire since then. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this civil revision petition isallowed, the impugned order is set aside and LA. No. XVII stands dismissed. --- *** --- .