JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of plaintiff No. 1-Bhagwandas against the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below dismissing the suit of plaintiffs for deletion of the names of defendant No. 1 and his late brother Bindua @ Bhichhua, Nadua as well as Late Mahadevi and Somvati from the revenue record. The State of M. P. was arrayed as proforma defendant. 2. The plaintiffs are Bhagwandas and Gopaldas. The respondent No. 3 Gopaldas is plaintiff No. 2 in the plaint. 3. According to the plaintiffs, they are the joint Bhumiswamis having equal share in the suit property. This has also been endorsed in the revenue record and they are also paying the land revenue. According to the plaintiffs, they are also possessing the suit property. Further it has been pleaded that in the revenue record the names of defendant No. 1-Shriram and his late brothers Bindua @ Bhichhua, Nadua and sisters Mst. Mahadevi and Somvati are recorded as occupancy tenant which is a wrong entry made in the revenue record, because they never cultivated the land in question nor paid any land revenue. Indeed, the plaintiffs are possessing the suit property as Bhumiswami. 4. According to plaint para 3 the occupancy tenants Bindua @ Bhichhua, Nadua, Mahadevi and Somvati have died 15, 17, 30 and 15 years ago respectively prior to the date of filing of the suit and defendant No. 1 is the sole heir of these dead persons, hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with a prayer to delete the names of those persons who have been wrongly recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record. 5. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement and refuted the plaint averments. The State of Madhya Pradesh has been impleaded as formal defendant as it has been arrayed as defendant in terms of Order 1, Rule 3B, Civil Procedure Code (State amendment). 6. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, inter alia found the suit to be not maintainable and dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits. 7. The plaintiffs filed First Appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 6. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, inter alia found the suit to be not maintainable and dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits. 7. The plaintiffs filed First Appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court only on the ground of maintainability of the suit holding it to be not maintainable, dismissed the appeal without giving any finding on merits. 8. In this manner this Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant. 9. This Court on 7-5-2007 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law :- Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in holding that plaintiff suit for declaration of title in respect of the agricultural land is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 257 of the M.P.L.R. Code ? 10. The contention of Shri Chandil, learned counsel for the appellant is that, if the suit was not found to be maintainable, the learned trial Court was not justified to decide the case on merit and in that situation, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for proper presentation in the proper Court in terms of Order VII, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court Punjab National Bank vs. Sarman, 2003 (1) M.P.W.N. 39 and further placed reliance on two decisions of learned Single Judge Surajmal vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, 1978 (1) M.P.W.N. 66 and Kundan Singh and another vs. M.P. State Sahakari Vipanan Sangh Ltd., Bhopal, 1978 (1) M.P. W.N. 487. 11. In this case none of the respondents are appearing although they have been served, except Shri P. N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2/State, who is a proforma party. Regarding Substantial Question of Law: 12. In the present case the plaintiffs have sought the following relief in their plaint:- Nowhere in the plaint the plaintiffs are seeking declaration of their Bhumiswami right in the suit property. Their specific prayer is to get the revenue record corrected by deleting the names of defendant No. 1 as well as some of the persons who are no more in the world as their names have been wrongly entered as occupancy tenant. Their specific prayer is to get the revenue record corrected by deleting the names of defendant No. 1 as well as some of the persons who are no more in the world as their names have been wrongly entered as occupancy tenant. According to me, the said relief cannot be granted by the Civil Court since it is specifically barred under section 257 (z-2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). According to this provision, any claim to compel the performance of any duty imposed by this Code on any Revenue Officer or other officer appointed under this Code it cannot be decided by Civil Court and the exclusive jurisdiction would rest in the Revenue Authorities for better understanding it would be appropriate to quote section 257 which reads thus :- 257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters :- (z-2) any claim to compel the performance of any duty imposed by this Code on any Revenue Officer or other officer appointed under this Code. If this provision is kept in juxtaposition to sections 115 and 116 of the Code, it is as clear like a noon day that it is the wisdom of Tehsildar who if finds that a wrong or incorrect entry has been made in the land records prepared under section 114 of the Code by an officer subordinate to him, he shall direct necessary change to be made therein in red ink after making such enquiry from the person concerned. In this regard section 115 of the Code is quite clear. On going through section 116 of the Code, this Court finds that if there is any dispute regarding entry in Khasra or any other land records, the aggrieved person may apply to the Tehsildar for its correction within one year of the date of such entry. In this regard section 115 of the Code is quite clear. On going through section 116 of the Code, this Court finds that if there is any dispute regarding entry in Khasra or any other land records, the aggrieved person may apply to the Tehsildar for its correction within one year of the date of such entry. Hence, according to me, by reading these provisions conjointly the only inference which can be drawn looking to the relief: sought by the plaintiffs is that instead of filing Civil Suit he should have approached to the Tehsildar. Hence, according to me, learned two Courts below did not commit any error in holding that the suit is not maintainable, in this context the decision of this Gwalior Bench passed in Second Appeal No. 123/1971 decided on 7-12-1981, Batulbi vs. Munnawarkhan which is digested in 1982 MPWN 304 may be seen, and I think it proper to quote para 6 of the said judgment which reads thus :- 6. The only other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, under section 257 (z-2) read with section 115 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code whereof, direction to correct entries in revenue papers, cannot be given by the Civil Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has conceded to this point. 13. The question now would rest whether plaintiffs are entitled to any relief or not. According to me, when learned trial Court found that the suit itself is not maintainable on account of inherent lack of jurisdiction the plaint should have been returned to the plaintiffs for presentation in the proper Court in terms of Order VII, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. In this context, the Division Bench decision of this Court pronounced in Punjab National Bank (supra) reproducing the entire decision in toto in the journal may be placed reliance. 14. The question would still arise that whether now at this stage of Second Appeal this relief can be granted to the plaintiffs or not. In this context, the Division Bench decision of this Court pronounced in Punjab National Bank (supra) reproducing the entire decision in toto in the journal may be placed reliance. 14. The question would still arise that whether now at this stage of Second Appeal this relief can be granted to the plaintiffs or not. On going through the explanation to Rule 10 of Order VII, this Court finds that the legislature in order to remove the doubts declared that the Court of Appeal or Revision may direct after setting aside the decree passed in a suit to return the plaint under this provision and, therefore, this relief can be granted to the plaintiffs even at Second Appellate stage and this is the demand of justice also. Indeed, the learned First Appellate Court should have taken into consideration this aspect of the matter when it affirmed the finding of learned trial Court holding the suit to be not maintainable as the same is specifically barred under section 257(z-2) of the Code. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, by setting aside the judgment and decree of the two Courts below this appeal is disposed of by giving direction to learned trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs in original to file before proper Court. The plaintiffs, if so advised, may file the plaint before the Tehsildar and if the same is filed before Tehsildar, the same may be decided in accordance with law by treating the plaint to be an application under sections 115 and 116 of the Code. Needless to say, if any application under section 14 of the Limitation Act is filed by the plaintiffs, the same may be taken into consideration by the Tehsildar in accordance to the law. 16. With the aforesaid observations this appeal is disposed of. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on or before 5-4-2010. The Registry is hereby directed to send the record posthaste to learned trial Court so as to reach on or before 5-4-2010. 17. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.