JUDGMENT 1. - Instant miscellaneous appeal impugns the orders dated 5.1.1991 and 29.1.1991 of Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur City, whereby the issue No. 3 in respect of jurisdiction of civil Court was decided against the plaintiff appellant (in short the plaintiff), and review petition of the plaintiff was also dismissed. 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant respondents (in short the defendants) in the trial Court seeking following reliefs : (a) Possession of the disputed property be handed over to the plaintiff. (b) Defendant No. 2 be restrained from raising construction over the said land and from transferring the said land. (c) The decree dated 8.7.1985 passed in Civil Suit No. 269/84 be declared void and unexecutable. (d) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. (e) any other relief expedient in the circumstances of the case be awarded to the plaintiff. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 12 issues. Issues No. 6 & 10 are relevant for the purposes of this miscellaneous appeal, which are as under : (English translation) "6. Whether the decree dated 8.7.1985 is invalid and voidable in view of the reasons incorporated in para No. 11 of the plaint. 10. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear this suit on account of nature of disputed property which is agricultural land." 4. The learned trial Court decided issue No. 10 as preliminary issue and observed vide judgement dated 5.1.1991 that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and the plaint was directed to be returned for filing it before the competent revenue Court under 0.7 R 10 CPC. Thereafter the plaintiff filed review application for reviewing the said order. The review application was also dismissed by the learned trial Court by the order dated 29.1.1991. Both these orders have been assailed in this miscellaneous appeal. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. 6. Mr. Suresh Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff strenuously contended that the impugned orders are illegal and deserve to be set aside on the ground that relief of declaration in respect of decree dated 8.7.1985 cannot be passed by a revenue Court. It was also contended that. issue No. 10 could not have been decided without recording the evidence. On the other hand, Mr. It was also contended that. issue No. 10 could not have been decided without recording the evidence. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the defendants canvassed that from the perusal of the plaint it is abundantly clear that the suit is triable by the revenue Court. Reliance was placed on Asala v. Narain, RLW 1963 page 323 . 7. Full Bench of this Court in Badri Lal & Anr. v. Moda & Ors., AIR 1979 Raj. 142 propounded that where the suit contained two reliefs, one triable by civil Court and another by revenue Court, the proper forum was that of the civil Court. 8. In Gurucharansingh & Ors. v. Mst. Gurdayal Kauar & Ors., AIR 1982 Raj. 91 it was indicated that where the suit for declaring decree of revenue Court as void and ineffective was filed along with other relief. Other relief being for partition and possession, the suit was cognizable by the civil Court and not by the revenue Court. In Begraj v. Gumanaram, RLW 1963 page 516 , it was held that the suit for declaration that the judgment of revenue Court was void because that Court had no jurisdiction is triable by civil Court and by revenue Court. 9. In the case on hand, I am of the view that issue No. 6 cannot be decided by the revenue Court. Declaration of a decree passed by the competent Court is not included in the list of the suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The case of Asla v. Narain is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned Court below while deciding issue No. 10 did not appreciate that the issue No. 6 cannot be decided by the revenue Court and in view of the relief sought in the plaint in respect of the decree dated 8.7.1985 passed in Civil Suit No. 269/84 the civil Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Thus the finding on issue No. 10 is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 10. Consequently, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. I hold that the instant suit is triable by the civil Court. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 9.2.1998.Appeal allowed. *******