JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.96 of District Judge, Panna, directing, as an interim measure during the pendency of the suit, that a Truck seized by authorised Forest Officers u/s 52 of Indian Forest Act 1927 and about which proceedings for confiscation had been started u/s 52 of the Indian Forest Act, for the respondent having committed an offence punishable u/s 33(1)(B) of the said Act. He was released on surety to the plaintiff on furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- subject to terms of its being produced before a Court whenever required or before the authorised authorities. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the seizure of the truck by the authorised authorities was illegal and also that confiscation proceedings had been illegally started. A declaration to this effect was sought in the suit. Needless to say that suit had been contested by the defendants who are appellants now urging among others grounds, that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Sec. 52(C) of the Indian Forests Act as there was complete machinery provided for relief against any order of confiscation. Appeal would lie firstly to the higher authorised officers, then, to the Sessions Judge and the aggrieved party would then avail of normal proceedings of approaching the High Court, if still aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge. Instead of availing of that time of relief, the plaintiff sought to file a suit for declaration, but such suit was barred by the provisions of Sec. 52(C) of the Indian Forests Act. The trial Court, however, opined it to be fit to pass interim order of releasing the truck to the plaintiff. The provision of Sec. 52 and 52(C) provide for seizure of forest produce as also vehicles used in committing the offence. Sections 52(3)(f) and (5) provides for procedure of confiscation or forfeiture of the vehicle as well as the produce by the authorised officer. Notices are to be given to the persons interested in the vehicle. Sec. 52(A) of the Forest Act provides the procedure of appeal against order of confiscation to the Conservator of Forests who is designated as appellate authority. The section also provides for procedure of hearing of appeals and its decision. Notices are to be given to the persons interested in the vehicle. Sec. 52(A) of the Forest Act provides the procedure of appeal against order of confiscation to the Conservator of Forests who is designated as appellate authority. The section also provides for procedure of hearing of appeals and its decision. Then, Sec. 52- B provides a further relief of revision to Court of Session, against the order of appellate authority by the aggrieved party. Sec. 52(B) (5) provides finality to the order of Court of Session. However, the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court in revision is similar as his jurisdiction under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This is laid down in sub-clause (4) of Sec. 52(B) of this Act. Lastly Sec. 52(C) is in following terms. "52-C. Bar to Jurisdiction of Court etc., under certain circumstances - (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of Sec. 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property by' the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Court of Sessions referred to in sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated u/s 52, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. Explanation - Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of Sec. 52 by one of the Courts of Magistrates having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under the provision by all the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Court. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power saved under section 61." It thus appears clear from perusal of the above provisions that a complete machinery has been provided for trial of question of confiscation of forest-produce about which an offence has been committed or confiscation of the vehicle used in which such offence has been committed. The machinery for appeal and revision has been provided also. The machinery for appeal and revision has been provided also. After providing this machinery, specific bar to jurisdiction of all Courts has been laid down. Thus, clearly even the jurisdiction of civil Courts shall stand barred by this provision. The trial Court made a reference to a judgment cited in Mohd. Afgan v. State of M.P. 1983 M.P. Weekly Notes 360. This was a case arising before the present provision of Sec. 52 & Sec. 52-A, 52-B & 52-C of the Indian Forests Act were introduced. The present Sec. 52 was introduced by Act of 25 of 1983 by its Sec. 3 whereas the case cited pertains to an event which took-place on 8th April, 1982. The learned District Judge appears to have totally forgotten or ignored this aspect. The District Judge has further made a reference to Kamal Singh v. State of M.P. 1993(2) M.P. Weekly Notes p. 200. This case pertains to the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and it was not a case of civil suit. The proceedings were u/s 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. about disposal of property by the trial Court. The property had not been confiscated in that case. So that case could have no application whatsoever, in the context of the present dispute. On a perusal of the provisions of Sec. 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52-C, it is crystal clear that the remedy of the owner of the truck or any body interested in the truck was firstly to go in appeal or to go in revision if still dissatisfied as per the above provisions. As per the provisions, Jurisdiction of Civil Court, did not exist to try such a suit. Therefore, prima facie also the trial Court could not pass an order of Supandgi by way of interim measure. The order being without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Respondents shall bear the costs of this appeal which I fix at Rs. 1000/-. The vehicle, if released, shall be returned to control of authorities, as before the impugned order. A copy of this Order shall be sent to the trial Court.