JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-defendant Workmen Compensation Commissioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19-2-97 by which the trial Court while deciding issue No. 3 held that the suit filed by the plaintiff in civil Court is maintainable and is not barred under Section 19 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Kothari Foundation (Charitable Trust), Calcutta impleading trustees as plaintiffs filed suit against the State of Rajasthan, Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur and Tehsildar, Nathdawara alleging that plaintiffs 'Dharmashala' was let out to one Banshilal S/o Jugraj, who was running his own canteen by appointing certain employees, He appointed one Nanalal S/o Tarachand as his employee, who met with an accident while in service on 22-1-82. Nanalal submitted a claim petition before the defendant-petitioner Workmen Compensation Commissioner in which notice was issued to one Jugraj Lookar and proceedings were taken against only that person. No Notice was served upon the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2- petitioner Workmen Compensation Commissioner of the proceedings which were pending before the petitioner-defendant No. 2. In that Claim case Workmen Compensation Commissioner passed the award of Rs. 10201/- in favour of the claimant, but according to plaintiffs, was against only Bhanshilal Lookar. However, the said amount was recovered by threat of the sale of the property of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs under protest deposited the said amount on 25-1-90. In these circumstances, after service of notice under Section 80 CPC, the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 10201/- against the defendants as mentioned above. 3. The plaintiffs submitted various documents including the copy of the award dated 23-2-83 passed by the petitioner-defendant No. 2 Workmen Compensation Commissioner in the claim of Nanalal. The trial Court framed the issues and one of the issues was whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in civil Court alongwith other issues. On the request of both the parties, the trial Court proceeded to decide issue Nos. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues. For issue No. 4 the trial Court observed that question of necessary party cannot be decided without evidence, therefore, held that this issue will be decided alongwith other issues. On the request of both the parties, the trial Court proceeded to decide issue Nos. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues. For issue No. 4 the trial Court observed that question of necessary party cannot be decided without evidence, therefore, held that this issue will be decided alongwith other issues. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 3 held that since plaintiff Kothari Athithishala, Nathdawara (Kothari Foundation Charitable Trust) was not impleaded as party in the proceedings before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, therefore, the matter is not covered by Section 19(2) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is clear from the copy of the award placed on record by the plaintiffs before the trial court dated 28-2-83 that the plaintiff No. 1 trust was very much party before the Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The trial Court under wrong assumption that the plaintiff trust was not party before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, therefore, recovery of the amount in that proceedings can be challenged by the plaintiff in civil Court. It is also submitted that as per Section 19 it is clear that only Workmen Compensation Commissioner can decide the liability of a person under the Act of 1923 and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine the decision of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act of 1923. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs submitted that jurisdiction of the Court can be determined only on the basis of allegations in the plaint and jurisdiction does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, AIR 1985 SC 577 . So far as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, there is no dispute, but the said proposition has no application to the facts of this case. Here in this case, the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff trust was not party in the proceedings before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and plaintiff himself submitted the copy of the award, which clearly reveals that the plaintiff trust was very much party and the trust was represented by Banshilal Jain. Here in this case, the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff trust was not party in the proceedings before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and plaintiff himself submitted the copy of the award, which clearly reveals that the plaintiff trust was very much party and the trust was represented by Banshilal Jain. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed the issues and recorded evidence of both the parties and after considering facts in detail passed the award against the plaintiffs trust. Even the defendants themselves admitted the connection of Banshilal with the plaintiff trust. Who is liable in the claim case under workmen Compensation Act, 1923 can only be determined by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and once the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has determined the liability of the plaintiff, the said finding cannot be challenged in the civil suit and suit of the plaintiff is clearly barred, by sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act of 1923. 6. The trial Court committed mistake of fact while going to the root of the matter, when the trial Court observed that plaintiff was not party in the suit. 7. Therefore, the revision petition of the petitioner is allowed and the order under challenge dated 19-2-97 is set aside. Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner-defendant No. 2 and it is held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in civil Court. The plaintiff's suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, hence dismissed.Petition allowed. *******