JUDGMENT Dinesh Gupta, J. This civil revision is preferred against the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no.6, Mathura (J.S.C.C.), in Small Causes Case no.02 of 2010. 2. The brief facts which give rise to this revision are that : The M/s G.M. Food Products, hereinafter called the 'opposite party no.1', preferred a suit for eviction before District Judge (J.S.C.C.) which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge for disposal against the applicant -revisionist, hereinafter called the revisionist, with the allegation that the revisionist is the tenant of O.P. no.1. 3. The said suit was contested by the revisionist and certain legal pleas including the suit barred by Section 23 of Small Causes Act as well as the bar of jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit were taken. The court formulated points of determination and point of determination no.5 was formulated as to whether the suit is barred by Section 23 Small Causes Court Act ? If yes, its effect and point for determination no.6 was formulated as to whether the court has no jurisdiction to hear this suit, if yes, its effect. 4. While deciding the points of determination nos. 5 and 6 the Court has taken a view that the evidence of the parties is yet to come and on the basis of the facts available on record. These points of determination were based on law and facts and it will be in the interest of justice that these points of determination may be decided after the evidence of the parties. 5. Feeling aggrieved with this order the revisionist preferred this revision before this court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted: That the lower court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. That learned lower court has passed the impugned order with material irregularity. That if the impugned order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice and irreparable loss to the revisionist. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted: That the lower court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. That learned lower court has passed the impugned order with material irregularity. That if the impugned order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice and irreparable loss to the revisionist. That the learned court below instead of returning the plaint as mandated by Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, observed in the order that the question of jurisdiction in the aforesaid case was a mixed question of law and facts and there was still time for evidence to be adduced in the said case and, therefore, the said question of jurisdiction would be considered after the completion of the evidence. The said observation of the court below is against the law. The court below erred in law in basing his decision on the fact that the said plot was once given on rent to the first/opposite party no.2. The said fact was wholly immaterial as the ownership of the property got changed and vested in the firm by virtue of proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951. That the objection of the revisionist that there existed a bonafide dispute with regard to the title of the disputed property was a reasonable plea. That the court below has also erred in law in holding that the said question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law on facts as required in the writ petition no.58007 of 2009 filed by the revisionst before filing of the suit which clearly demonstrates that there is a bonafide ground sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court Act as provided under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. That the production of the evidence before the court below in such a situation would cause huge and unnecessary hardships to the applicant as the issue of jurisdiction could be decided by the court below even on the given set of facts available before the court below. That order passed by the court below is against law, illegal and not tenable. It deserves to be quashed and the matter be sent back for decision afresh on the issue of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. 8. That order passed by the court below is against law, illegal and not tenable. It deserves to be quashed and the matter be sent back for decision afresh on the issue of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon following authorities: Badhu Mal Vs. Mahabir Prasad 1988 AWC,1057 Pratap Singh Vs. IXth Addl. Dist. Judge, Fatehpur 2000(3)AWC 1995 Gopal Chand Singh Roy Vs. District Judge, 1996(2) Allahabad Rent Cases Mahesh Chandra Sharma Vs. IInd A.D.J. Mathura, 2006(4) A.W.C. 3393 9. I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. First of all the court has not decided the point of determination no.5 whether the suit is barred by Section 23 of the Provincial Small Courts Act. The Court has taken a view that the same shall be decided after taking the evidence as it is a mixed question of law and facts and there appears to be no illegality in the order passed by the court below. 10. Admittedly, initially the property in question was taken on rent lease from the opposite party no.1, there were certain subsequent changes on which the revisionist claimed that he became the owner of the property in dispute and claimed that the intricate question of title is involved in the suit and as such Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title and plaint should be returned to the O.P. no.1 for presentation to the proper Court. 11. The Court has not decided this controversy yet at all and observed that it should be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. No doubt the question in the present scenario depends upon the facts and it is mixed question of law and facts since the trial court has not decided this controversy yet it will not be proper to make any observation in this regard. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the court below and, therefore, no interference is called for in this revision. Since no prejudice is caused to the revisionist, the court has only observed to take up this issue after the evidence of the parties. No sufficient ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. 12. Revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.