JUDGMENT 1. - The defendants petitioners have filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 19-5-1997 passed in appeal No. 67/96 passed by Shri Koshore Lal Mathur, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand reversing the order of the trial Court dated 24-10-1996 by which the application of the non-petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a regular suit for perpetual injunction and prayed he may not be relieved from his post in pursuance to the order of transfer dated 18-6-1995 and status quo ante he maintained and if during the pendency of the suit he is relieved then he may be posted again in Majera School. At the relevant time, the plaintiff-non-petitioner was posted as Physical Instructor in the Secondary School, Majera, Petitioner No. 2. District Education Officer. Rajsamand, presumably acting on the complaints of the District Police Superintendent. Rajsamand, asked the non-petitioner plaintiff to report in his office. Thereafter, on 13-5-1995, petitioner No. 2 again relieved him and transferred to his previous post. Thereafter the non-petitioner-plaintiff was transferred from Majera to Salaguda. The plaintiff has assailed the above transfer on the ground of mala fides. He has alleged that he has been transferred with an ulterior object in order to accommodate some other person on his post. Though transfer is an incidence of service but frequent transfers smack of mala fides and ulterior motive. The petitioners resisted the above suit on the ground that the transfer was made in accordance with the transfer policy. It was in public interest. The transfer was devoid of any mala fide. The plaintiff cannot claim a vested right to remain in a particular place of posting for unduly long period. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. 3. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found that the transfer was made in pursuance of the Government Policy of Transfer. It was not actuated by any malice or ill will. He, therefore, dismissed the application of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of dismissal of the application, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand who allowed the same and set aside the order of the trial Court dismissing the above application. 4. It was not actuated by any malice or ill will. He, therefore, dismissed the application of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of dismissal of the application, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand who allowed the same and set aside the order of the trial Court dismissing the above application. 4. A notice of this petition was issued to the plaintiff-non-petitioner but he has not appeared despite service of notice. 5. I have heard Shri M.R. Singhvi appearing on behalf of the petitioners. He has assailed the order of the appellate Court on the ground that normally the appellate Court must be slow in interfering with the order of the trial Court when the same is well reasoned, detailed and in accordance with law. The appellate Court is only called upon to disturb the order of the trial Court when it suffers from pervercity or ignorance of law. In the instant case, the order of the trial Court was well reasoned, proper and in accordance with the settled principles of law. The learned appellate Court, therefore, committed a jurisdictional error in reversing the above order. 6. His second and substantial argument is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted by the provision contained in Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State Government issued notification No. F. 17(7) , 2/77 dated 25-2-1997 by which transfer has been defined as service matter. Hence by Section 10 of the Act read with the above notification of the Government, the Civil jurisdiction to entertain this matter was ousted. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court. therefore, and no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the above matter and adjudicate the same. 7. I have considered the submissions. Firstly may deal with the argument regarding jurisdiction. It is a settled law that the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred: such exclusion must be either explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Hence every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The onus lies on the party seeking to oust the jurisdiction. It is a settled law that the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred: such exclusion must be either explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Hence every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The onus lies on the party seeking to oust the jurisdiction. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows: No suit or other proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any Civil Court with respect to any matter under or provided for by this Act." 8. The notification issued by the Government reads as, follows: % vf/klwpuk % jktLFkku floy lsok ekeyksa ds fy, vihy vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1976 vf/kfu;e la0 4 lu~ 1976 dh /kkjk 2 p ds vuqlj.k esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;g vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ljdkjh deZpkjh dk ,d LFkku@in ls] nwljs LFkku@in ij LFkkukUr.k laca/kh ekeyk Hkh lsok laca/kh ekeys ds vUrxZr lfEefyr gksxkA 9. A perusal of Section 10 of the Act shows that the Civil Court has been prohibited from entertaining any matter arising under or provided for by the Act. Whether transfer is such a matter which comes within the purview of Section 10 of the Act? The answer is provided by the notification of the Government quoted above. All the transfer matters have, therefore, been categorised as matters arising under or provided for by the Act. Hence the present matter fell within the ambit of Section 10 of the Act and the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the matter of the non-petitioner-plaintiff. 10. It may also be stated that the learned appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error in reversing the order of the trial Court. Normally the appellate Court must be slow in interfering with the order of the trial Court when the same has been well reasoned, detailed and rendered after appreciation of the three ingredients which regulate the disposal of the application filed unifier Order 39, Rules I and 2, C.P.C. The order of the learned appellate Court was proper, detailed and given after considering the law on the point. The learned appellate Court had, therefore, no scope to interfere with the above order. 11. The learned appellate Court had, therefore, no scope to interfere with the above order. 11. For the above reasons, I accept the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Courts below and hold that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was without jurisdiction. The learned trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the non-petitioner-plaintiff with an endorsement to present the same before any Court/Tribunal of competent jurisdiction. No orders as to costs.Petition allowed. *******