JUDGMENT : R.D. KOTHARI, J. 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to grant relief, as prayed for, by the plaintiff is keenly contested issue in this petition. The learned advocate for the parties were aggressive in their Submission, though main question is relatively simple i.e. is the suit in the present case raises question of civil nature? In seeking answer to this, at what stage of the suit the question is raised, is also relevant. 2. The petitioner is defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 2012 pending before the Senior Division Court, Baroda. The petitioner had given an application (Exh.25) challenging jurisdiction of the said Court. That application was rejected by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition. It is say of the petitioner that Company Court would have jurisdiction under the Companies Act in the facts of the present case and not the Civil Court. 3. Few relevant facts are thus; One Jalan Forging Limited gone into liquidation and in Company Petition No. 325 of 1999, this Court passed an order to wind up the said company. Official Liquidator (O.L.) was appointed. Then, O.L. submitted a report i.e. 10 of 2006. Pursuant to the same, the High Court appointed a sale committee. Auction of property of Jalan Ferro Chroma Limited was carried out in accordance with law. It can be said that petitioner has purchased the property in question. Then, on 05.09.2011, the petitioner had alleged to have committed encroachment over the plaintiff's land. Plaintiff had approached the Company Court and against the order of Company Court Division Bench, and thereafter the present suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 2012 is filed. Plaintiff claims to own Survey No. 110 of Village Khakhariya, Taluka Savli, District Baroda. In the liquidation proceedings, by executing two sale deeds, land transferred to the petitioner. One sale deed is for Survey No. 110/1/1118 and of 110/1119 of Village Khinjarva, Taluka Savli, District Baroda. The second sale deed is for plot No. 2348. It is of survey No. 219-3 paiki. It appears that in liquidation proceedings, 60.464.90 sq. mtr. land transferred to the petitioner. It is say of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1/petitioner has encroached upon the plaintiff's land. 4. Heard the learned advocate for the parties. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahva has submitted that not the Civil Suit Court but Company Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief. mtr. land transferred to the petitioner. It is say of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1/petitioner has encroached upon the plaintiff's land. 4. Heard the learned advocate for the parties. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahva has submitted that not the Civil Suit Court but Company Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief. That the respondent's remedy lay before the Honourable Supreme Court or before appropriate forum and initiation of proceedings before the Civil Court is not proper. That execution of sale deed at the instructions of High Court cannot be challenged before the Civil Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted the detailed written submissions. Main contention in support of the submissions is that, only Company Court has jurisdiction. In this regard, submissions made are thus: (i) That the respondent has come forward with the case that O.L. under the guise of sale-deed of Survey No. 110/1/1118 and second of 110/1119 has taken possession of Survey No. 110. (ii) In substance say of plaintiff is, that sale deed executed by the Company Court is not of land of Company in liquidation and, therefore, same is illegal. (iii) That the Company Court and over the order of Company Court, order of Division Bench, both the Courts have rejected the say of the respondent, if the respondent is aggrieved by the order of Division Bench. He has to challenge it before appropriate forum. Suit is not remedy. (iv) That upon receiving of report from O.L. and after due deliberation, Company Court has held that total area of Company in liquidation is 60.464.90 sq. mtr. Land. Now prayer that total area of land of company in liquidation is 28,329 sq. mtr. Land, cannot be granted by the trial Court. That respondent has sought declaration before the Civil Court with respect of suit property which is a property in liquidation, therefore, only the Company Court can dealt with such property. (v) In substance, plaintiff challenges the sale deed executed by the Company Court. (vi) That the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide that the sale deed executed by the High Court is nullity or not. (vii) That such declaration plaintiff cannot seek directly or indirectly via suit. (viii) That in view of Section 446 of Companies Act, declaration in respect of land of Company in liquidation cannot be granted by the Civil Court. (vii) That such declaration plaintiff cannot seek directly or indirectly via suit. (viii) That in view of Section 446 of Companies Act, declaration in respect of land of Company in liquidation cannot be granted by the Civil Court. (ix) That the nature of relief sought by the respondent in the suit, are such, that only Company Court can entertain it. (x) That in substance, prayer in Para 26 (D) is to examine verasity of the order passed by the High Court - no such power Civil Court has. 6. Learned advocate Mr. P.R. Thakkar, for the respondent, has submitted that Survey No. 110 belongs to plaintiff and 110/1 belongs to company in liquidation. In support of the submissions that Survey No. 110 belongs to plaintiff, attention was drawn to relevant entries in the revenue record and also to the registered sale deed of plaintiff's land. At the time of hearing, attention was also drawn to sketch (Page 292) and D.I.L.R. report (Page 294 and 303). It was submitted that only Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief, as prayed for by the plaintiff. Referring the written submissions filed by the petitioner in the suit and commenting on the stand taken by it, it was submitted that dishonest plea is advanced by the petitioner. It was also submitted that petitioner has taken contradictory plea. That the nature of objection taken by the petitioner is - in substance and in sense is nothing but abuse of process of law. The learned advocate has also submitted written submissions. In the written submission reference is also made to the relevant documentary evidence about the plaintiff's ownership of survey No. 110. It was submitted that plaintiff has no grievance about the property of company in liquidation. That the question, whether the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the plaintiff's land, can be considered-is also held by Company Court-by the Civil Court. Relying and referring the order of Company Court in the written submission, it is asserted that in view of holding of Company Court, Civil Court has jurisdiction. It is pointed out that Division Bench over the order of Company Court has held that declaration in respect of survey No. 110 that plaintiff's land-cannot be granted by the Company Court. Relying and referring the order of Company Court in the written submission, it is asserted that in view of holding of Company Court, Civil Court has jurisdiction. It is pointed out that Division Bench over the order of Company Court has held that declaration in respect of survey No. 110 that plaintiff's land-cannot be granted by the Company Court. It was submitted that plaintiff is not calling upon the Civil Court by the present suit to decide the validity of the sale deed or to give any decision pursuing to the property of company in liquidation. 7. In reply, learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa has attacked the plaintiff's submissions namely, plaintiff's relief is limited to land belonging to plaintiff. It was submitted that plea of "non born land" is misconceived. The said plea was never raised before the High Court. Pleading and submissions of "non born land" was commented upon. If the land is not sold by the High Court, it was submitted, then plaintiff has other appropriate remedy-not the present suit-and if land is sold by the High Court then remedy lay only before the High Court or before the Honourable Supreme Court. Strong reliance was placed on holding an observation of Company Court and on the observation of Division Bench against the order of the Company Court. Relying on the same, it was urged that suit is not maintainable and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief. It was submitted that plaintiff ought not to have agree before the High Court that what was sold by O.L. is valid. 8. At this stage, reference may be made to the finding of the trial Court. Before that, it is important and material to note that in unusually brief, application submitted before the trial Court i.e. Exh.25, the petitioner has raised the objection as to jurisdiction urging that petitioner's registered office is at Ahmedabad, therefore, Civil Court at Baroda has no jurisdiction. It was submitted by learned advocate for the respondent that before the trial Court, only objection raised in this regard was objection as to geographical jurisdiction. Then before this Court, the said plea was virtually given up and focus is shifted on lacking of jurisdiction of the Civil Court on above referred grounds. It was submitted by learned advocate for the respondent that before the trial Court, only objection raised in this regard was objection as to geographical jurisdiction. Then before this Court, the said plea was virtually given up and focus is shifted on lacking of jurisdiction of the Civil Court on above referred grounds. Now reference may be made to finding of the trial Court in order under challenged: (i) Suit land i.e. Survey No. 110 situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Baroda, therefore, Civil Court at Baroda has jurisdiction. Further, if we consider the nature of relief, as prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint, it would appear that suit falls within the ambit of Section 16 (a) of C.P.C. (ii) That it is well settled that in order to decide the question of jurisdiction of Civil Court, averments made in the plaint only to be looked into. The contention raised in written statement are irrelevant. (iii) It would appear from the pleading that dispute raised by the plaintiff is not pursuant to the management and/or affairs of the Company and the relief asked for by the plaintiff is purely of Civil nature. Hence, Section 10 of the Companies Act, would not be attracted in the present case. (iv) Looking to the relief, as prayed for, by the plaintiff, suit is instituted for declaration of title/ownership and for the possession. Suit is not barred under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (v) That Jalan Ferro Chroma Limited filed a Company Petition No. 355 of 1999 and the said Company was wind up. That proceeding has culminated into two sale deeds executed in the favour of the present petitioner on 15.04.2009. (vi) Valuer's report of the assets of liquidated company, relates to plot No. 2348 and Survey No. 110/1. The said report does not refer Survey No. 110 i.e. plaintiff's land. Further, neither it is referred in sale proclamation nor it is referred in sale confirmation order of High Court. (vii) That the respondent had filed a Company Petition No. 444 of 2011 before the Company Court seeking relief with regard to title and ownership of survey No. 110. In this regard, order of Company Court dated 17.10.2011-Para 15 and Para 16.3 quoted. (viii) The Court refers and quotes para 10 and Para 22, 22.2 of order dated 17.10.2011. Trial Court also quoted Para 22.5 and 23. In this regard, order of Company Court dated 17.10.2011-Para 15 and Para 16.3 quoted. (viii) The Court refers and quotes para 10 and Para 22, 22.2 of order dated 17.10.2011. Trial Court also quoted Para 22.5 and 23. (ix) That land bearing Survey No. 110 was nowhere indicated in the order of High Court nor it is mentioned in the sale. O.L. in its report says that Survey No. 110 was never in contemplation. (x) Finding and conclusion of Division Bench against the order of Company Court-in O.J. Appeal 64 of 2011 dated 22.11.2011 quoted. Since, the present defendant No. 1/petitioner is trying to encroach upon the land Survey No. 110, plaintiff's company has filed the present suit praying relief of declaration of title and ownership. 9. In essence, challenge to the jurisdiction of Civil Court based on three points: (i) That plaintiff prays to quash the sale deed executed by the Company Court in liquidation proceedings. Such prayer cannot be granted by the Civil Court. (ii) It is not the Civil Court but only the Company Court or the Honourable Supreme Court can grant the relief. (iii) Having lost before the company Court, plaintiff cannot reagitate the same question before the Civil Court. 10. Prior to filing of the Special Civil Court No. 64 of 2012, the respondent had filed a Company Petition before this Court i.e. 444 of 2011. Said petition of the respondent on the same subject matter came to be decided and disposed of on merits. Therefore, relief claimed in the said petition and finding of Court in the said petition, are relevant and important. In order to appreciate properly, the objection of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner, reference to it i.e. Company Petition 444 of 2011 may be made. 11. Relief claimed by the respondent in Company Petition No. 444 of 2011 are thus: “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this application with costs throughout. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the property bearing Survey No. 110 admeasuring 2-44-18 i.e. 24,418 Sq. Mtrs. situated in the sim of village Khakharia of Taluka Savli, District Vadodara is of the ownership of M/s. Trans India Steel Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act i.e. of the applicant herein. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the property bearing Survey No. 110 admeasuring 2-44-18 i.e. 24,418 Sq. Mtrs. situated in the sim of village Khakharia of Taluka Savli, District Vadodara is of the ownership of M/s. Trans India Steel Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act i.e. of the applicant herein. (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the official liquidator has no power or authority to sell the property bearing Survey No. 110 admeasuring 24,418 Sq. Mtrs. situate in the sim of village Khakharia of Taluka Savli, District Vadodara and therefore, the sale deed which is executed in April, 2009 in favour of one Agrawal Mittal Concast Private Limited be declared as illegal and void and the same be quashed and set aside. (d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that as per the order passed by the Company Court dated 21.11.2008, the property bearing Survey No. 110 was never a part of the sale and, therefore, the sale of the property was confined to plot No. 2348 and Survey No. 110/1 of Champaner Road, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals and the said land admeasures only 23,329 Sq. Mtrs. and therefore, sale of any extraneous land would be per-se beyond the order and illegal and therefore, in turn the same be declared as illegal and the same be quashed and set-aside. (e) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this application, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the official liquidator as well as M/s. Agrawal Mittal Concast Private Limited or any of their servants, agents, executors, engineers, contractors etc. from putting up barbed wire fencing or brick wall or putting up any construction on the land bearing Survey No. 110. (f) To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 12. from putting up barbed wire fencing or brick wall or putting up any construction on the land bearing Survey No. 110. (f) To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 12. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the parties, Company Court has concluded thus: (i) Referring the company petition, filed by the present petitioner i.e. Company Petition No. 443 of 2008, the Company Court in Company Petition No. 444 of 2011 observes that-in that application present petitioner therein was "seeking certain directions....." and therein reference was made to Survey No. 2348 and not to the land in respect of which grievance is made i.e. Survey No. 110 (Para 16.3). (ii) The applicant has come forward raising dispute and claim with regard to parcel of land bearing survey No. 110....... "which appears to be different from the property described in the two sale-deeds." (iii) That the applicant asserts that respondent No. 1 illegally encroached upon Survey No. 110. The respondent No. 1 denies this assertion. The issue that whether the respondent No. 1 has actually illegally encroached upon the applicant's land or not, cannot be entertained, examined, and determined by this Court (Para 18.2). (iv) That determination of such issue would involve detailed fact finding inquiry including inquiry about the actual measurement of applicant's land, its location, title and ownership details, about revenue record etc. which cannot be undertaken by this Court. (Para 18.2, 22, 22.3) (v) That essentially and substantially, the applicant has made, allegation against the respondent No. 1 and allegation is made with regard to land Surey No. 110. (Para 21.3) (vi) Question of title and ownership and measurement of applicant's land and other relevant and connected aspects cannot be entertained and decided by this Court. (vii) Say of learned advocate for O.L. is-neither O.L. nor any of its officer have taken any action nor have permitted anybody to take any action in respect of land in question i.e. Survey No. 110. (Para 23) (vii) Advertisement issued by O.L. and sale deed executed by him, does not mention anything about the applicant's land i.e. Survey No. 110. (Para 26.1) (viii) Declarations of ownership in respect of land survey No. 110 asked by the applicant cannot be granted by the High Court. 13. (Para 23) (vii) Advertisement issued by O.L. and sale deed executed by him, does not mention anything about the applicant's land i.e. Survey No. 110. (Para 26.1) (viii) Declarations of ownership in respect of land survey No. 110 asked by the applicant cannot be granted by the High Court. 13. Over and above the above referred finding of the Company Court,-in order to appreciate say of Company Court qua main prayer-therein-read prayer A in Company Petition No. 444 of 2011 versus Para 22.5, 26, 26.1 and 27.3 in the order of the Company Court. 14. Order of Company Court in petition No. 444 of 2011 virtually dismissing the respondent's petition was carried out in appeal by the respondent i.e. O.J. Appeal No. 64 of 2011. In its short order, Division Bench agreed with the finding and conclusion of Company Court. Division Bench has held: “6. The learned Company Judge found that the appellant sought a declaration of title over Survey No. 110 from the Court to hold and declare that the property bearing Survey No. 110 of village Khakharia of Savli Taluka, District : Vadodara is of the ownership of M/s. Trans (India) Steel Limited, which could not have been done by the Company Court. In our view, the learned Company Judge was right in holding thus: “The jurisdiction of the Company Court would be restricted to dealing with a transaction of the Company which has gone in liquidation". Survey No. 110 of village Khakharia is not of the ownership of the Company which has gone in liquidation and is not ordered to be dealt with by the Official Liquidator. It is also not dealt with by the Official Liquidator, as per his stand and it is not purchased by the auction purchaser, as per the stand of the auction purchaser. There is no material on record to conclude that the transaction entered into by the Official Liquidator with the auction purchaser, with the permission of the Company Court, is in respect of Survey No. 110 of village Khakharia. Only on the basis of discrepancy in measurements, it cannot be said that the land of the ownership of the appellant has been dealt with by the Official Liquidator and sold to the auction purchaser. The learned Company Judge was, therefore, right in refusing to entertain the application. Only on the basis of discrepancy in measurements, it cannot be said that the land of the ownership of the appellant has been dealt with by the Official Liquidator and sold to the auction purchaser. The learned Company Judge was, therefore, right in refusing to entertain the application. In our view, if the case of the appellant is right, then it is a case like any other private party encroaching upon or selling away somebody's property and if the appellant proposes to protect its title and possession, it has to approach an appropriate forum therefor. The Company Court is not the right forum.” 15. The relief claimed by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit 64 of 2012, in substance are thus: (i) To declare that plaintiff is the owner of Survey No. 110 ad-measuring 24418 sq. mtr. land of Village Khakhariya, Taluka Savli, District Baroda. (ii) To declare that defendants have no right to take away the suit property under the guise of registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. (iii) To declare that act of defendant No. 2 in connivance with defendant No. 1 "to snatch away the physical possession" of the suit land under the guise of sale-deed is illegal, null and void. (iv) To declare that possession of defendant No. 1 of Survey No. 110/1/1118 and Survey No. 110/1119 is nothing but taking away the physical possession of the suit land. (v) To declare that Jalan Ferro Chroma Limited was the owner of only two lands i.e. Survey No. 110/1 and Plot No. 2348 of Survey No. 219/3. (vi) To declare that act of defendant No. 2 to take physical possession of other land i.e. other than the aforesaid two lands is illegal, null and void and such illegal act may be quashed. (vii) That part of the land sold by registered sale-deed, the part under challenged-its measurement and identification-as stated in the relief-is non borne land and no such land exists. 16. If we refer cause of action in the plaint, it appears that it is unnecessarily lengthy, such nature of avoidable elaboration gives room to the other side to raise question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit. Plaintiff could have been precise, so far as cause of action is concerned. 16. If we refer cause of action in the plaint, it appears that it is unnecessarily lengthy, such nature of avoidable elaboration gives room to the other side to raise question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit. Plaintiff could have been precise, so far as cause of action is concerned. All the same, plaintiff alleges that defendant has made encroachment on the suit land i.e. Survey No. 110 on 05.09.2011 and also alleges facts leading to the filing of the present suit. 17. It is clear from the above discussion that as per the say of plaintiff, he is the owner of Survey No. 110. The petitioner has purchased the land sold in auction carried out pursuant to one company i.e. Jalan Forging Limited went into liquidation. Plaintiff's claims that petitioner has encroached upon his land. Relief claimed by the plaintiff in plaint, finding of the trial Court in order under challenge, finding of Company Court and order of Division Bench against the order passed by the Company Court-all these material point towards the jurisdiction of Civil Court. The petitioners vehement objection has no substance. Had it been a case that plaintiff had filed a suit praying to quash the sale deed executed by Official Liquidator (defendant No. 2) if the plaintiff has come forward with said prayer simplicitor, then raising of dispute about jurisdiction, as raised before this Court could be understood. It is not so. 18. In this regard also one clarification may be made. Merely because sale deed came to be executed at the instance of or under the supervision of High Court, it cannot be said that by that itself jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted. There is no question of challenge to hierarchy-in absence of proper expression-of jurisdiction involved. Civil Court is competent to try all suits of the civil nature. In Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan vs. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001 . The Honourable Supreme Court had occasioned to consider the meaning of civil nature. In that case, two sects of Catholic Christian were at war to acquire administration of one Church. Dispute ostensibly was for religious and spiritual supremacy over the church but in reality to gain administrative control over one Trust created in 1808. Litigation was over 100 years old. Earlier round of litigation ended by AIR 1959 SC 31 . In that case, two sects of Catholic Christian were at war to acquire administration of one Church. Dispute ostensibly was for religious and spiritual supremacy over the church but in reality to gain administrative control over one Trust created in 1808. Litigation was over 100 years old. Earlier round of litigation ended by AIR 1959 SC 31 . Now question arose whether suit for declaration that the Syrian churches are episcopal or claim for declaration that Malankara Association has become autocephalous is maintainable or not. In this regard Section 9 of CPC came to be considered by the Court. It was held:- “Each word and expression casts an obligation on the court to exercise jurisdiction for enforcement of right. The word shall makes it mandatory. No court can refuse to entertain a suit if it is of description mentioned in the Section. That is amplified by use of expression, all suits of civil nature. The word civil according to dictionary means, relating to the citizen as an individual; civil rights. In Blacks Legal Dictionary it is defined as, relating to provide rights and remedies sought by civil actions as contrasted with criminal proceedings. In law it is understood as an antonym of criminal. Historically the two broad classifications were civil and criminal. Revenue, tax and company etc, were added to it later. But they too pertain to the larger family of civil. There is thus no doubt about the width of the word civil. Its width has been stretched further by using the word nature along with it. That is even those suits are cognisable which are not only civil but are even of civil nature. In Article 133 of the Constitution an appeal lies to this Court against any judgment, decree or order in a civil proceeding. This expression came up for construction in S.A.L. Narayan Row vs. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas AIR 1965 SC 1818 . The Constitution Bench held a proceedings for relief against infringement of civil right of a person is a civil proceedings. In Arbind Kumar Singh vs. Nand Kishore Prasad, AIR 1968 SC 1227 it was held to extend to all proceedings which directly affect civil rights. The dictionary meaning of the word proceedings is the institution of a legal action, any step taken in a legal action. In Arbind Kumar Singh vs. Nand Kishore Prasad, AIR 1968 SC 1227 it was held to extend to all proceedings which directly affect civil rights. The dictionary meaning of the word proceedings is the institution of a legal action, any step taken in a legal action. In Blacks Law Dictionary it is explained as, In a general sense, the form and manner of conducting juridical business before a court or judicial officer. Regular and orderly progress in form of law, including all possible steps in an action from its commencement to the execution of judgment. Term also refers to administrative proceedings before agencies, tribunals, bureaus, or the like. The word nature has been defined as, the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character; sort; kind; character. It is thus wider in content. The word civil nature is wider than the word civil proceeding. The Section would, therefore, be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristic of affecting ones rights which are not only civil but of civil nature.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. If one private persons land or property-for illustration-by mistake, sold in company liquidation proceedings by the High Court and sale deed came to be executed, then such a private person can approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. 20. Learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Thakkar, at the time of hearing has drawn attention to these case laws: (i) Abdula Bin Ali vs. Galappa, AIR 1985 SC 577 (ii) Dwarka Prasad Agrawal vs. Rameshchandra Agrawal, AIR 2003 SC 2696 (iii) Kalipindi Appala Narasamma vs. Nageshwara Rao, 2008 (10) SCC 107 (iv) Madho Singh vs. Moni Singh, AIR 2004 SC 4316 (v) Madhav Rao vs. Khunru Balappa, 2004 (11) SCC 161 (vi) Jaggannath Kashinath Patil vs. Narayan Balugaikar, 1997 (2) SCC 212 (vii) E. Achutan vs. P. Narayanan Nair, 1987 (2) GLH 396 21. These binding decisions help the respondent. More relevant and important cases are one Dwarka Prasad Agrawal (D) by LRs. case (supra), wherein dispute arose between the legal heirs of Dwarka Prasad Agrawal for publishing Dainik Bhaskar daily from Bhopal. In the litigation pending before the Civil Court one of the issue arose was-jurisdiction of Civil Court in view of provision of the Companies Act (Section 10). More relevant and important cases are one Dwarka Prasad Agrawal (D) by LRs. case (supra), wherein dispute arose between the legal heirs of Dwarka Prasad Agrawal for publishing Dainik Bhaskar daily from Bhopal. In the litigation pending before the Civil Court one of the issue arose was-jurisdiction of Civil Court in view of provision of the Companies Act (Section 10). It was held that question of illegal dispossession of property of the company, is the civil dispute and jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted by the Companies Act. That the suit is maintainable. Then in Madhao Rao case (supra), though question arose with relation to revenue laws, it was held that when question of title of the land is involved, Civil Court has jurisdiction. It was held that suit is maintainable and Civil Court has jurisdiction. 22. In the present case, the petitioner had given an application (Exh.25) to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. It appears that without passing any formal order on the said application,-whether to hear said application as preliminary issue or not,-the Court has taken up the said application for hearing on merits and has passed the order under challenge. Question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts. Facts lay in gray area, as the case, is at initial stage. It is at the stage of Exh.5. Simply saying, plaintiff has come forward with the case that defendant No. 1 has encroached upon his land. That defendant No. 1 has committed tress pass over his land. Defendant denies this. It is dispute of civil nature. If it is dispute of civil nature, then Civil Court has jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, but for the professional skill of learned advocate for the petitioner, this case could not have been developed at this level. As observed above, plea has no substance. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that one or the other relief-rather part of it-raises doubt and lay in debatable area, then at the end of trial, trial Court may refuse to grant such relief holding that it has no jurisdiction. Trial Court may restrict to the pleading and relief over which it has jurisdiction. To agree with the submission of petitioner, means to non suit the plaintiff on the ground of jurisdiction. Material on record are not at all favourable to this view. 23. Trial Court may restrict to the pleading and relief over which it has jurisdiction. To agree with the submission of petitioner, means to non suit the plaintiff on the ground of jurisdiction. Material on record are not at all favourable to this view. 23. Plaintiff has raised the plea of non borne land, much comment was made by learned advocate for the petitioner on this. When the plaintiff has raised that plea, it is for the plaintiff to establish the same. If plaintiff is able to demonstrate the assertion of non borne land clearly, then it is difficult to say that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. On the other hand, if plaintiff finds it difficult or very strained effort made by the plaintiff to show that such land does not exist then Court may refuse to grant relief on this plea or may pass appropriate order in this regard. In either case, Civil Court would have jurisdiction to consider this plea. 24. Three main questions relating to the jurisdiction raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner fail. It is not true to say that plaintiff has come forward only with a prayer to set aside the sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner. It cannot be said that in the facts and circumstances of the case, only High Court or Supreme Court have jurisdiction. It is also not possible to agree with the submission that since the plaintiff has failed before the Company Court, plaintiff cannot raise the plea before the trial Court. Similarly, reliance was placed on Section 446 of the Companies Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is also misplaced. 25. In view of above discussion, the petition fails. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Rule discharged. FURTHER ORDER At this stage learned advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of the operation of the order for eight weeks. Learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Thakkar opposing this prayer vehemently submits that suit is stayed since long, and therefore, no stay should be granted and hearing of the suit should be expedited. It was pointed out that during the pendency of the petition, the suit was stayed by the interim order of this Court. Present order is stayed for further period of six weeks from today. Petition dismissed.