SHARAD DAVE, J. ( 1 ) RULE. LAs for the respondents waives the service of rule. With the consent of the LAs for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE only question which arises for my consideration is as under:- While filing Revision Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether the Trial Courts written order should be produced on record or oral say of the Trial Court can be the basis of Revision? ( 3 ) ). It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner/applicant is original defendant whereas present opponents are the original plaintiffs who filed Civil Suit No. 5388 of 1985, before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for recovery of possession of the premises, which, according to the original plaintiffs (present respondents) was trespassed by the applicant (Original defendant ). It is the case of the petitioner herein that, the present opponents have filed one HRP Suit No. 3017 of 1985, before the Small causes Court at Ahmedabad for recovery of possession of the rented premises more particularly, on the east and north portion of the ground floor of the premises bearing Municipal Census No. 1268-1-1 and room situated on east of the first floor and rooms situated on the north, interalia containing that the applicant is tenant on the suit premises. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he, as a defendant in HRP Suit No. 3017 of 1985 contested the HRP Suit however, the suit was decreed against him. An appeal was preferred before the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad being appeal No. 73 of 1994. The said appeal was also dismissed and thereafter, the Civil Revision Application No. 337 of 1999 is preferred before this High Court and the same is admitted by this Court, vide order dt. 26. 4. 1999. The applicant gave application at Exh. 122 in the City Civil Court, for stay of the proceedings under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that, the relief which has been prayed by the original plaintiffs, in as much as which has been prayed by the present respondent in HRP Suit No. 3017 of 1985. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court, against which the Civil Revision Application No. 612 of 1999 was filed before this Court. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court, against which the Civil Revision Application No. 612 of 1999 was filed before this Court. Vide order dtd. 16. 8. 1999, by this Court (Coram: B. J. Shethna, J) the Civil Suit No. 5388 of 1985, filed in the City Civil Court, was stayed till HRP Suit No. 3017 of 1988, is disposed of finally by the Small Causes Court on or before 30. 4. 1992. ( 5 ) LA appearing for the petitioner further submitted that, the present appellant/defendant produced the copy of the judgment and decree passed by Small causes court in HRP suit No. 3017 of 1985, as well as the copy of the judgment and decree of the appellate bench of Small Causes Court, in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1994. The present petitioner, has also produced copy of the order passed by this Court in CRA No. 612 of 1991, pointing out that, this Court has stayed the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes court, in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1994, and further submitted that, the CRA No. 337 of 1999 is finally disposed of by this Honourable Court and accordingly, the Civil Suit No. 5388 of 1995, pending before the City Civil Court, is required to be stayed. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the appellant/original defendant that, the Ld. City Civil Judge, Shri V. C. Modi, has refused to entertain the application given at. exh. 122 and placed the matter for final hearing on 15. 10. 2001. On the above date, the applicant has produced copy of the order passed by this Court on 26. 4. 1999, in CRA No. 337 of 1999 and copy of the order passed in Civil Revision Application no. 612 of 1991. Ld. Trial Court Judge, has refused to stay the proceedings of Civil Suit no. 5388 of 1985, and fixed next date of hearing on 19. 10. 2001. Therefore, being aggrieved by the oral say of the Ld. Trial Court, the present appellant original defendant has filed this Revision Application. ( 7 ) AT the time of hearing of this Revision application, Mr. 5388 of 1985, and fixed next date of hearing on 19. 10. 2001. Therefore, being aggrieved by the oral say of the Ld. Trial Court, the present appellant original defendant has filed this Revision Application. ( 7 ) AT the time of hearing of this Revision application, Mr. BT Rao, LA for the appellant/original defendant, has posed question that, if, against the judgment and order confirmed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 337/99 pending in this Court, this Court comes to a conclusion that, the petitioner/original defendant is a tenant of the whole suit property and that, the Ld City Civil Court, also passes decree in favour of the present respondent/ original plaintiffs, there will be conflicting decisions which would be against the principle of natural justice as held in various decisions of the apex court and this Court. Therefore, till civil appeal no. 337 of 1999 pending in this Court, is disposed of, by this Court, the Civil Suit pending in City Civil Court bearing No. 5388 of 1985 be stayed. ( 8 ) AGAINST the aforesaid submission, LA Mr. PV Nanavati, for the respondent/original plaintiffs has stated that, this Revision Application is filed at premature stage and requires to be dismissed in limine. There is no order of the Trial Court below Ex. 122, in Civil Suit No. 5388 of 1985 and accordingly, no cause of action has arisen to the appellant/original defendant to rush to this Court in CRA. ( 9 ) FROM the papers, according to Mr Nanavati, LA for the respondent, it appears that, the decree passed in HRP Suit No. 3017 of 1985, by the Small Causes Court, and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1994, is on the ground of material alteration and arrears of rent of suit premises. The suit filed in the City Civil Court, is filed on the ground that, the petitioner is not the tenant of the suit premises as stated in the suit and that, he has trespassed on such a premises or land for which, Small Causes Court, has no jurisdiction to give any decision on the same. The Small Causes Court is having the special jurisdiction in the Rent Act, whereas, for the rest of the prayers, the City Civil Court, has jurisdiction to hear and try the suit. The Small Causes Court is having the special jurisdiction in the Rent Act, whereas, for the rest of the prayers, the City Civil Court, has jurisdiction to hear and try the suit. Mr. Nanavati, further submitted that, the jurisdiction of the court is to be determined by the averments made in the plaint, and not the contentions raised in the written statement. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nanavati, relied on a case of Abdulla Bin Ali Vs. Galappa and Ors. reported in AIR 1985, SC 577. Ld. Counsel Mr. Nanavati, further submitted that, if the Trial Court is going to consider the contention raised in the written statement, then, no court will be able to go on with the matter and plaintiffs position would be like a shuttle cock. Therefore also, this Court should not entertain present Revision which is filed on the wrong notions. ( 10 ) ). I have gone through the relevant papers produced on record. Though Mr. Rao, LA for the appellant/ original defendant in support of his submission has relied on judgment of Small Causes Court, as well as Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, he has not produced any copy of judgment on record for perusal. ( 11 ) ). Even he has also failed to produce the written statement filed in Civil Suit No. 5388 of 1985, pending in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show before me the rival contentions as raised in the Small Causes Court, the judgment of the appellate bench and written statement of civil Suit No. 5388 of 1985. One more aspect which also goes against the the appellant/original defendant that there is no order of the City Civil Court, below Ex. 122, and merely on oral say of the Ld. Trial Court Judge, the appellant/original defendant has rushed to this Court by way of this CRA. I am of the opinion that the advocate for the appellant/original defendant in the City Civil Court should have insisted before the Ld. Trial Court for passing an order, below ex. 122, I am also of the opinion that, the jurisdiction of the court is to be decided from the averment made in the plaint and not the contention raised in the written statement. Trial Court for passing an order, below ex. 122, I am also of the opinion that, the jurisdiction of the court is to be decided from the averment made in the plaint and not the contention raised in the written statement. Therefore, I have no option but to dismiss this Civil Revision Application with a direction to the Ld Trial Court Judge, (Shri V. C. Modi) to decide the application Ex. 122, of Civil Suit No. 5388 of 1985, pending in his Court, according to law. Therefore, this CRA is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. .