Honble YAMIN, J.–These four revisions are being decided together because they involve the same question of law. (2). There is a property named as Jaswant Sarai situated at Jodhpur. That belongs to Devasthan Department as per gazette notification dated 25.6.1951. The respondents were occupying some portions in the Jaswant Sarai as tenants. When Devasthan Department wanted them to get their tenencies regularised as the ear- lier tenants who were the fore-fathers of the respondents had expired, they approached the civil Court for permanent injunction. They also submitted applications for temporary injunction but he trial Court dismissed the same. On appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur they were successful and temporary injunctions were granted in their favour. The State of Rajasthan has then come in revisions. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suits have been filed before the civil Courts without jurisdiction as Section 10-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (in short `the Act of 1964) bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. He submitted that the respondents should not have filed suit before the Civil Court. He also drew my attention to a circular issued by the Rajasthan High Court to all judicial officers some time in the year 1993 by which the judicial officers were asked to see provisions of Section 10 and 10-A of the Act of 1964 and were directed that in future they will not entertain such type of cases in which Public Premises are in disputes. (4). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear all types of civil suits and that there was no bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts for the cases in hand as the department was compelling its tenants to execute rent notes with certain conditions and was pressing them to get their tenancies regularised. He submitted that such a suit would not be barred. (5). I have given my anxious consideration to the controversy involved. Section 9 of the C.P.C. provides that the Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. He submitted that such a suit would not be barred. (5). I have given my anxious consideration to the controversy involved. Section 9 of the C.P.C. provides that the Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Section 10-A of the Act of 1964 which is a special legislation provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of the rent payable under sub-section(1) of Section 7 or the damages payable under sub-section(2) of that section or costs awarded to the State Government under sub-section (5) of Section 9 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs. (6). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tenants were not unauthorised occupants and as such they could file suit before the civil Court. I am afraid, it is not so. When the original tenants died, the occupation of the respondents became unauthorised. Therefore, the Devasthan Department wanted to regularise the tenancy as a good gesture to them. It does not mean that they were not unauthorised occupants. However, even if they were authorised, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred by Section 10-A of the Act of 1964. The High Court had already issued a circular to the judicial officers when its attention was drawn by the Government that inspite of provision under Section 10-A of the Act of 1964 th suits were being entertained by the civil Courts. (7). When there is a bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts, learned Munsif could not have entertained the civil suit and as such could not have entertained the application for temporary injunction. The appellate Court would not have entertained the appeal and all the proceedings which have taken place are without jurisdiction. (8). Consequently, these revisions are allowed and the order of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur being without jurisdiction is set aside. It is ordered that the learned trial Court will return the plaints to the respondents according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. No orders as to costs.