Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.:- Matter is taken in the revised cause list. None present on behalf of the respondent. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Brief facts of the present case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner-plaintiff has filed a Regular Suit No. 238 of 1981 in the court of Munsif, Tarabganj, District Gonda for cancellation of a sale-deed in respect to the house properties as well as agricultural land and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from the interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, and from raising any construction over the property in dispute. Defendants filed their written statements inter alia stating that in view of the relief as claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the Suit, the same is not cognizable before the Civil Court, thereafter the trial court had framed issues out of which the issue no. 8 was to the effect as to whether the Suit filed by the petitioner is maintainable before the Civil court or not, it is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950. By order dated 23.05.1985, the trial court (Munsif Gonda) decided the issue no. 8 in favour of the petitioner, that the Suit filed by the plaintiff is cognizable before the civil court. Aggrieved by the same the defendant-respondents filed a revision registered as Civil Revision No.89 of 1985 (Bhoop Narain Vs. Badri Prasad and others) in the court of Special Additional District Judge, Gonda. The revisional court after placing the reliance on the explanation to Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950, quoted as under :- 331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act-(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof or of which any relief or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. Explanation :- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted. A Second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid. Further, the revisional court held that the Suit of declaration and cancellation of the sale-deed can only be adjudicated before the revenue court, accordingly the issue no. 8 is decided against the plaintiff-petitioner and by means of judgment and order dated 21.04.1988 partly allowed the revision filed by defendants-respondents in view of the observation made in the body of the said judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.04.1988 passed by the Special Additional District Judge, Gonda in Revision No. 89 of 1985 so far issue no. 8 is decided against the petitioner-plaintiff, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter in question submits that the judgment pased by the revisional court dated 21.04.1988, the Suit for cancellation with the respect to the agricultural land is not cognizable before the Civil Court is contrary to law in view of the following cases :- (a) Ram Padarath and others Vs. Second Addl. District Juddge, Sultanpur and others (F.B.) 1989 AWC 290 . (b) Shri Ram and Another Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge and others (2001) SCC 24. (c) Ram Kunwar Singh and others Vs. Pramod Kumar and another 2007(4) AWC 3414. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 21.04.1988 passed by the revisional court thereby deciding the issue no. 8 against the petitioner taking into consideration, the explanation of Section 331 of U.P. Act no. (c) Ram Kunwar Singh and others Vs. Pramod Kumar and another 2007(4) AWC 3414. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 21.04.1988 passed by the revisional court thereby deciding the issue no. 8 against the petitioner taking into consideration, the explanation of Section 331 of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951 is incorrect, interpretation of the same thus arbitrary in nature and contrary to law, liable to be set aside. As stated above, the matter is taken in the revised cause list. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I proceed to adjudicate the matter in question and the sole question which is involved in the present case as to whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of sale deed and injunction in respect or not. For the purpose of disposal of the said controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary to have a look to the relevant provisions of Section 331 of U.P. Act, no. 1 of 1950 which is as under :- Explanation :- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted. Law is well settled that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied and that is for the party which contends that the civil court does not have the jurisdiction to establish the fact. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Waheed Khan Vs. Bhawani and others, AIR 1966 SC 1718 :- "It is settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of civil court of to establish his contention. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Waheed Khan Vs. Bhawani and others, AIR 1966 SC 1718 :- "It is settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of civil court of to establish his contention. It is also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed." A Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ram Padarth V. A.D.J. Sultanpur and others, 1989 AWC 290 , held as under :- "Suit for cancellation of a sale deed or other instruments and documents are essentially suits of civil nature. Every suit of civil nature is cognizable by the civil court except cognizance of which is expressly or impliedly barred." In the case of Jagdamba Prasad Singh Vs. Prahlad Singh, 1980 ALJ 1135, this Court observed as under :- "......Examining the validity of sale deed in suit cognizable by revenue court is not the same thing as saying that a suit for cancellation of void documents is cognizable only in revenue court. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted it shall mean that suit for cancellation of voidable document would lie in civil court, whereas of void documents in revenue court. This however, is fallacious. Both the suits are cognizable in civil court." In the case of Mahabir Singh Vs. Smt. Ilam Kaur, 1981 AWC 120 , it was observed :- "Where the suit was filed for cancellation of gift deed in respect of agricultural land which the defendants got fraudulently executed in their favour from the plaintiff, the suit for cancellation of gift deed could not be said to be barred by section 331 as after lapse of time the unchallenged existence of such documents could cause difficultly in establishing title to the land. In such a case, it could not be said that the relief of declaration being available, suit for cancellation should be considered to be barred." Thus, in nutshell, the suit for cancellation of void deed is cognizable by civil court and section 331 does not deprive a party from a right to approach competent court of law for getting a document canceled and instead drives a party to revenue court claiming a different relief and that of cancellation which a revenue court cannot grant holding the deed to be void. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram and another Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge and others (2001) 3 SCC 24 in Paragraph 7 held as under :- " On analysis of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure-holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having been obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure-holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure-holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the Revenue Court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession." The same view was reiterated in the case of Ram Kunwar Singh and others Vs. Pramod Kumar and another 2007(4) AWC 3414, by this Court as under :- Para- 8. "The main relief claimed by the plaintiffs was for cancellation of the sale deeds on the ground that they were not executed by them but by some impersonator and the ancillary relief was for possession of the crops standing over the land after partition. The names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the revenue records before the mutation was done in favour of the defendants on the basis of the sale deeds. The names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the revenue records before the mutation was done in favour of the defendants on the basis of the sale deeds. The plaintiffs have not sought a declaration of their right or status as bhumidhar of the disputed plots. Para-17. There is, therefore, no error in the judgments of the courts below holding the suits to be maintainable before the civil court." In view of the above said facts the judgment and order passed by the revisional court dated 21.04.1988 is contrary to law and can not sustain. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, judgment and order dated 21.04.1988 passed by the respondent no. 1(Special Additional District Judge, Gonda) is set aside. Trial court is directed to proceed and decide the Suit in question in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned expeditiously. No order as to costs.