JUDGMENT P.K Palli, J.—Plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court. Suit for possession filed by him against the defendant was decreed by the trial Court. On appeal filed by the defendant the first appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the plaint has been ordered to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented before an appropriate forum. The grievance of the plaintiff, in the present appeal is against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. 2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contends that on the’ facts established on record, the first appellate Court has committed an error by ordering the return of the plaint for presentation before an appropriate Court. According to the learned Counsel the defendant has already been held to be trespasser and being in un-authorised possession of the suit land to Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, besides relying upon the reasonings given by the first appellate Court points out that as per the averments made in the plaint it is a case in respect of correction of the revenue record as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 4. It is next contended that the appeal shall not lie as the plaint has been ordered to be returned and the said order is appealable under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The next argument raised by Mr. Sharma is that in sequence of the order of the return of plaint the plaintiff has actually received the plaint originally filed by him and this amounts to having accepted the impugned judgment and in that situation also the appeal is not maintainable. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the impugned judgment and record I find that in an earlier suit filed by Chuhi where she had prayed for a declaration that she has become owner of the suit land, the said suit was dismissed. Chuhi Devi died during the pendency of the suit and the present defendant moved an application for being impleaded as her legal representative. Chuhi Devi died during the pendency of the suit and the present defendant moved an application for being impleaded as her legal representative. It was held by the Court in those proceedings that the defendant is not the legal representative of the deceased Chuhi and that his status is that of a trespasser that judgment is on record as Ex PA. 6. Appeal was filed laying challenge to this judgment, but the same was dismissed as not pressed vide judgment Ex. PB on record. It is, thereafter, the present suit has come to be filed by the owner of the suit land Smt. Sobhri. From the judgment passed by the appeal Court, it transpires that the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent made a statement that Poshu defendant would be at liberty to get his rights adjudicated upon in respect of the suit land In the written statement filed to the suit, the defendant has strangely not pleaded any independent lights of tenancy in him. He still claims his right, title and interest in the suit land through Chuhi and a Will executed by her has been set up in defence. 7. Admittedly, the defendant after the judgment passed by the first appellate Court in the suit filed by Chuhi has not filed any suit claiming his right, title or interest in the suit land. 8. Mr. Sharma contends that the defendant can even in these proceedings set up his title and the same has to be adjudicated upon. Be that as it may. 9. The appellate Court in the impugned judgment has taken notice of paras 2 and 3 of the plaint, where the plaintiff has stated that Chuhi was the tenant and created a sub lease in favour of the present defendant without consent. It is solely on this ground that the first appellate Court has held that the Civil Court, in the given set of circumstances, has no jurisdiction to try the matter and the plaint has been ordered to be returned for presentation before an appropriate forum. 10. A look at the judgment passed by the trial Court does go to show that the defendant has not been held to be a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. 10. A look at the judgment passed by the trial Court does go to show that the defendant has not been held to be a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. Once the rights of the parties have been determined in that manner, it was not open for the first appellate Court to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before an appropriate forum. In my considered opinion, on the facts proved on record in the present case the Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to try the suit, once it is found that the status of the defendant has been held to be that of trespasser in the suit earlier filed by Chuhi through whom the defendant claims title to the suit property. 11. Chuhi has, admittedly, died issueless. Before she succeeded to the tenancy rights, it was her husband who was non-occupancy tenant over the suit land. 12. The arguments raised by Mr. Sharma in respect of maintainability of this appeal also do not carry any force since by impugned judgment, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been ordered to be set aside and incidently a decree has been passed by the first appellate Court, in case the decree had not been passed the position could be different 13. Coming to the next point that the plaint has been ordered to be returned and has actually been returned and received by the plaintiff, I find that this act on the part of the plaintiff does not by itself dis-entitled him from filing the present appeal nor could work as a estoppel against him. 14. Admittedly, the plaint was got amended by the plaintiff and the amended plaint is on record. Even otherwise for the view I am taking the plaintiff is directed to place the original plaint on record and the matter shall be recorded thereafter. 15. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is, consequently, set aside. The appeal is allowed and the case is sent back to the first appellate Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 16. Costs to follow the events. 17. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 5th January, 1998. Records are ordered to be sent for forthwith. Appeal allowed.