JUDGMENT 1. -Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of agriculture land in the lower Court. The issue No. 6 was framed as to whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not. The lower Court decided that issue against the plaintiff-appellant and held that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit and consequently dismissed the suit itself. The first appellate Court confirmed the finding of the lower Court while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, hence this second appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that if the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit itself, being related to the agriculture land, then it had no jurisdiction to dismiss it also. Therefore, even if the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit then at the most it could have returned the suit to the plaintiff-appellant for its presentation in the proper Court. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents contended that the order passed by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate Court is in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atharnanathaswami Devasthanarn v. K. Gopalaswami, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 338, considered the same question of law and held that if the lower Court decides a question of jurisdiction and comes to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction over the matter then the plaint should have been returned to the plaintiff. In para No. 13 of the judgment, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "13. The last point urged is that when the civil Court has no jurisdiction over the suit, the High Court could not have dealt with the cross-object filed by the appellant with respect to the adjustment of certain amount paid by the respondent. This contention is correct. When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint." 6. The present controversy is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devasthanam's case (supra). 7. Consequently, this second appeal is allowed. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint." 6. The present controversy is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devasthanam's case (supra). 7. Consequently, this second appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The lower Court is directed to return the original plaint itself to the plaintiff for presentation in the competent court having jurisdiction. The plaintiff-appellant is directed to file a certified copy of this order before the lower Court within a period of two weeks from today and the lower Court, in, its turn, shall return the plaint within a period of two weeks thereafter. The plaintiff will be at liberty to file the suit in the competent Court within a period of five weeks from today along with an application for grant of injunction during the pendency of suit. However, both the parties are directed to maintain the status quo in respect of the land in dispute for a period of five weeks from today. 8. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******