JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri H.N. Shukla, for the petitioners and Sri Alok Yadav, for the contesting respondents. As in these writ petitions common questions are involved between the same parties as such all the writ petitions were consolidated and heard together and are decided by common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 42845 of 2015 has been filed against the order of Board Of Revenue, U.P. dated 12.05.2015, passed in Revision No. 861 of 2015, Writ Petition No. 43778 of 2015 has been filed against the order of Board Of Revenue, U.P. dated 12.05.2015, passed in Revision No. 860 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 44662 of 2015 has been filed against the order of Board Of Revenue, U.P. dated 12.05.2015, passed in Revision No. 859 of 2015. By these orders revisions have been admitted against the orders of Deputy Collector, rejecting the applications of the respondents under Section 10 C.P.C. and records of the suits have been summoned, arising out of the suits for partition under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The petitioners filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 79/89) under Section 176 of the Act, for partition of plot 21 (area 0.466 hectare) of village Auka, pargana Rari, district Jaunpur. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were co-sharers along with the contesting defendants, in which they had 2/9 share jointly. Due to plot being joint, there is always dispute between the parties in respect of use and occupation on the spot as such their share be separated. The defendants filed an application for staying the proceeding of the suit under Section 10 C.P.C. It has been stated that in between the parties O.S. No. 1350 of 2008 Ram Sumer Vs. Radhey Shyam, in respect of same property in dispute is pending in Civil Court in which interim injunction has been granted as such this suit is liable to be stayed. 4. The petitioners filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 80/90) under Section 176 of the Act, for partition of plot 137 (area 7.53 acre) of village Auka, pargana Rari, district Jaunpur. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were co-sharers in plot 137 of an area of 3.07 acre, which was recorded in khatas 277 and 314. 4. The petitioners filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 80/90) under Section 176 of the Act, for partition of plot 137 (area 7.53 acre) of village Auka, pargana Rari, district Jaunpur. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were co-sharers in plot 137 of an area of 3.07 acre, which was recorded in khatas 277 and 314. Remaining area of this plot was recorded in khatas 156, 400 and 442, in the names of the contesting defendants. Due to plot being joint, there is always dispute between the parties in respect of use and occupation on the spot as such their share be separated. The defendants filed an application for staying the proceeding of the suit under Section 10 C.P.C. It has been stated that in between the parties O.S. No. 1343 of 2008 Ram Sumer Vs. Radhey Shyam and O.S. No. 391 of 2009 Jagat Narain Vs. Rajesh, in respect of same property in dispute are pending in Civil Court in which interim injunction has been granted as such this suit is liable to be stayed. 5. The petitioners filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 81/91) under Section 176 of the Act, for partition of plots 146 (area 0.036 hectare), 147 (area 0.101 hectare), 149 (area 0.291 hectare), 151 (area 0.093 hectare) and 163 (area 0.121 hectare), (total area 0.642 hectare) recorded in khata 361, of village Auka, pargana Rari, district Jaunpur. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were co-sharers in the land in dispute, having 1/3 share, which were jointly acquired on the basis of patta from Bhudan Yagya Samiti. Due to plots being joint, there is always dispute between the parties in respect of use and occupation on the spot as such their share be separated. The defendants filed an application for staying the proceeding of the suit under Section 10 C.P.C. It has been stated that in between the parties O.S. No. 897 of 2008 Naipal Vs. Ram Lakhan, O.S. No. 1106 of 2008 Ram Krishna Vs. Ram Lakhan and O.S. No. 1343 of 2008 Ram Sumer Vs. Rajesh Shyam, in respect of same land in dispute were pending in civil Court in which interim injunction has been granted, as such the proceedings of this suit is liable to be stayed. 6. Ram Lakhan, O.S. No. 1106 of 2008 Ram Krishna Vs. Ram Lakhan and O.S. No. 1343 of 2008 Ram Sumer Vs. Rajesh Shyam, in respect of same land in dispute were pending in civil Court in which interim injunction has been granted, as such the proceedings of this suit is liable to be stayed. 6. Deputy Collector by separate orders dated 21.04.2015 found that Revenue Court alone has jurisdiction for partition of the land in dispute as such the proceedings of partition suits are not liable to be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. On these findings, he rejected the applications of the contesting respondents. They filed Revision No. 859 of 2015, against the order passed in Suit No. 80/90, Revision No. 860 of 2015, against the order passed in Suit No. 81/91 and Revision No. 861 of 2015, against the order passed in Suit No. 79/89, dated 21.04.2015. Board Of Revenue, U.P. by orders dated 12.05.2015, admitted the revisions and summoned the lower court records. Thus by summoning lower court records, further proceedings in partition suits have been withheld. Hence these writ petitions have been filed. 7. As the partition suit between the parties are pending for a long time. Due to the property being joint, several suits between the parties before Civil Courts and Criminal cases were filed and are going on. Right and title in the land can only be decided by Revenue Court as such it was found more appropriate to end the litigation between the parties that revenue suit be decided expeditiously, as such, the writ petitions were entertained and operation of the orders of Board of Revenue dated 12.05.2015 were stayed. Thereafter the contesting respondents appeared and filed Counter Affidavits. The petitioners also filed Rejoinder Affidavits. As such it was thought proper to decide the the issue raised in the revisions between the parties, so that the proceedings in partition suits may not be delayed further. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of Section 331 of the Act, Revenue Court alone has jurisdiction for partition the share of the co-sharers in the land recorded as agricultural holding in the revenue records and jurisdiction of Civil Court has been specifically barred. The suits before Civil Courts are suits for permanent injunctions while the suits before Revenue Court are suits for partition. As such Section 10 C.P.C. has no application in this matter. The suits before Civil Courts are suits for permanent injunctions while the suits before Revenue Court are suits for partition. As such Section 10 C.P.C. has no application in this matter. Deputy Collector has not committed any illegality in rejecting the applications of the defendants under Section 10 C.P.C. Board of Revenue, U.P., by entertaining revisions against the aforesaid orders and summoning lower court record has withheld the proceedings for partition suits, which was pending for a long time. He submits that orders of trial court do not suffer from any illegality and the revisions were liable to be dismissed at the admission stage but it were mechanically admitted without application of mind. Orders of Board of Revenue, U.P. are illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. The counsel for the respondents submitted that by orders dated 21.04.2015, Deputy Collector has rejected the applications of the contesting respondents, filed for staying the proceedings of the suits under Section 10 C.P.C. Issue under Section 10 C.P.C. is related to jurisdiction of the Court. The orders passed by Deputy Collector deciding the applications under Section 10 C.P.C. are revisable under Section 333 of the Act. Board of Revenue U.P. has not committed any illegality in admitting the revision and summoning of the lower court records as Section 333 of the Act, itself contemplates for calling for the record for deciding the revision. As such the impugned orders are well within jurisdiction of Board of Revenue, U.P. Impugned orders are interlocutory orders and writ petitions are not maintainable as held by Supreme Court in Dena Bank Vs. D.V. Kundadia, (2011) 15 SCC 960. The petitioners based their title on the sale deeds dated 29.07.1977, 26.05.1978 and 23.02.1979, which have been canceled by the decree of Civil Court dated 12.04.1993 passed in O.S. No. 604 of 1991 as such the suit for partition are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The first issue raised by the counsel for the respondents relating to maintainability of the writ petition, Supreme Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 2421 , held that the existence of an adequate or suitable alternative remedy available to a litigant is merely a factor which a court entertaining an application under Article 226 will consider for exercising the discretion to issue a writ under Article 226. But the existence of such remedy does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed. If, however, a party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226, it would not be appropriate for the court to entertain the writ petition. The rule is based on public policy but the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another court. But this Court has also held in Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa, (1964) 2 SCR 879 , that even when an alternative remedy has been availed of by a party but not pursued that the party could prosecute proceedings under Article 226 for the same relief. 11. As stated above, the partition suit between the parties are pending for a long time before Revenue Court which has exclusive jurisdiction. Due to the property being joint, several civil suits and criminal cases between the parties were filed and are also going on, as such, the writ petitions were entertained so that issue relating to title and share of the parties be dispose of as early as possible to prevent the parties from unnecessary harassment in civil and criminal litigation. So far as decree dated 12.04.1993 passed in O.S. No. 604 of 1991 is concerned, sale deeds dated 29.07.1977, 26.05.1978 and 23.02.1979 were in respect of 1.70 acre of plot 137, while this suit is in respect of plot 137 area 3.07 acre as such on its basis also the suit cannot be dismissed at present. So far as decree dated 12.04.1993 passed in O.S. No. 604 of 1991 is concerned, sale deeds dated 29.07.1977, 26.05.1978 and 23.02.1979 were in respect of 1.70 acre of plot 137, while this suit is in respect of plot 137 area 3.07 acre as such on its basis also the suit cannot be dismissed at present. In any case, this was not a ground for the application under Section 10 C.P.C., as such it is open to the respondents to raise all these points in written statement, which will be decided after taking evidence of the parties. 12. Section 10 C.P.C. provides that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. The question as to whether Civil Court, where various civil suits are pending between the parties has jurisdiction to grant the relief for partition, which is prayed in these revenue suit. Section 331 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, specifically barred the jurisdiction of other Courts in respect of suits, which are provided under Schedule II of the Act. The partition suit has been provided Serial No. 16 of Schedule-II as such Civil Court is not competent to grant relief for partition in respect of agricultural land. Thus revenue suits are not liable to be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. This Court in Krishna Bihari Mishra Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others, 2013 (120) RD 311 , after considering various case law of the subject, has held that suit under Section 229-B of the Act cannot be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. on the ground of pendency of Civil Suit. Ratio of that case is fully applicable in this case also. The orders of trial court do not suffer from any illegality. The revisions were liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 13. Supreme Court in Sajjadanashin Vs. Nazudala, (2003) 3 SCC 350, Gram Panchayat Vs. Ujajir Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 543 , Williams Vs. Lourdu Sami, (2008) 5 SCC 647 and Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. The orders of trial court do not suffer from any illegality. The revisions were liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 13. Supreme Court in Sajjadanashin Vs. Nazudala, (2003) 3 SCC 350, Gram Panchayat Vs. Ujajir Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 543 , Williams Vs. Lourdu Sami, (2008) 5 SCC 647 and Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mill (2010) 9 SCC 154, held that judgment of civil Court in injunction suit is not res-judicata between the parties in revenue suit. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders of Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 12.05.2015, passed in Revision No. 859 of 2015, Revision No. 860 of 2015 and Revision No. 860 of 2015, are set aside. These revisions are dismissed. If lower court records have been received in Board of Revenue, U.P., it should be remitted back forthwith. Trial Court shall proceed to decide the suits expeditiously, preferably within one year.