JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 108 of 2012 have preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramdurg, passed in R.A. No. 38 of 2013, dated 31-3-2015 by which, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 108 of 2012, dated 24-10-2013 has been affirmed. Briefly stated, the facts are, that plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule land bearing R.S. No. 85, measuring 10 acres 28 guntas pootkarab 4 guntas of Bochabal Village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are in possession of the said land as tenants and they have been cultivating the same as tenants. That Fakirappa is the adoptive father of Sadeppa Bannur alias Bankapur had tenanted the said property since the year 1957 to plaintiff 1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5, consequently their names were entered in the record of rights in column 12(2) and they have been in possession of the property in the year 1973. That Fakirappa, adoptive father of Sadeppa Bannur executed a Will dated 18-12-1973 in favour of plaintiff 1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. Father of plaintiffs 2 to 5 died in the year 1979 and thereafter their names have been in the revenue records. Since the year 1957 till date plaintiff 1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5, and after his demise plaintiffs 2 to 5 have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land, they have dug borewells, obtained electricity connection and they are cultivating the said land. Plaintiff 1 has constructed a house and residing therein. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 have constructed a hut. The State has sanctioned conversion of the hut as a house. Plaintiff 1 has constructed a house and residing therein. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 have constructed a hut. The State has sanctioned conversion of the hut as a house. That, on the enforcement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of brevity) plaintiffs filed Form 7 before the Land Tribunal, adjudication of their application filed in Form 7 has gone on since the year 1977 orders have been passed at different points of time by the Land Tribunal and by this Court and ultimately the matter is pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal but pending adjudication of Form 7, defendants were trying to interfere with the suit schedule land in order to dispossess the plaintiffs from the said land. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. 2. On receipt of suit summons and Court notices from the Trial Court, defendants appeared through their Counsel. Defendant 4 filed his written statement and defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 adopted the written statement of defendant 4. They contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 133 of the Act. That the Land Tribunal is seized of the matter. The application filed by the plaintiffs in Form 7 has not yet been adjudicated before the Land Tribunal at Ramdurg, that the plaintiffs could take recourse under Section 48-C of the Act. Therefore, they contended that that the suit be dismissed as it is not maintainable. 3. Based on the aforesaid pleadings the Trial Court framed issues and treated issue 3 as a preliminary issue. It reads as under: 3. Whether defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable in view of the matter pending before the Land Tribunal? 4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 24-10-2013 answered preliminary issue 3 in favour of the defendants and held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable as the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 24-10-2013 answered preliminary issue 3 in favour of the defendants and held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable as the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, plaintiffs filed R.A. No. 38 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg (First Appellate Court), which, on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, framed the following points for its consideration: (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in O.S. No. 108 of 2012, dated 24-10-2013 is capricious, arbitrary and perverse? (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in O.S. No. 108 of 2012, dated 24-10-2013 needs interference by this Court? (3) What order? It answered Point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court which has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court the appellants have preferred this second appeal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel Smt. Sumangala A. Chakalabbi, for the appellant. She contended that the Courts below were not right in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable, that the plaintiffs filed a simple suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The question of tenancy was not involved in the suit, that is a matter pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal at Ramdurg. A bare injunction suit before the Trial Court was maintainable but the Courts below have invoked Section 133 of the Act and have held that the suit was not maintainable. She contended that as the question of tenancy does not arise in a bare injunction suit as what is to be seen by the Trial Court is only lawful possession and interference from the defendants and not the tenancy issue, the Courts below were not right in holding that the suit was not maintainable. She contended that Section 133 of the Act is not applicable and invoking the said provision the Courts below could not have held that the suit was not maintainable. She submitted that substantial question of law would arise in this appeal and the appeal may be admitted for a detailed hearing. 6. She contended that Section 133 of the Act is not applicable and invoking the said provision the Courts below could not have held that the suit was not maintainable. She submitted that substantial question of law would arise in this appeal and the appeal may be admitted for a detailed hearing. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, in light of Section 133 of the Act and the decisions which have been referred to by Courts below during the course of their judgments. On referring to Sections 132 and 133 of the Act the Courts below have considered the judgments of this Court in the case of K. Ravindranatha Shetty v. Smt. Maire Hengasu, 2004 (5) Kar. L.J. 569 (DB), ILR 2004 Kar. 1615 (DB), which has confirmed the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mallayya Murigayya v. Puttappa Shivappa, 1976 (1) Kar. L.J. 369 (DB), wherein it held that when a question of tenancy would arise in a suit, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 132 would arise and under Section 133 of the Act, the matter would have to be referred to the Land Tribunal for its adjudication on that issue as the Civil Court is barred from adjudicating on the tenancy issue. In such a case irrespective of whether an application under Section 7has been filed before the Land Tribunal or not, the Civil Court would have to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal under Section 133 of the Act and the suit cannot proceed. 7. But, in the instant case the plaintiffs have themselves filed an application in Form 7 before the Land Tribunal. The matter is under consideration before the Land Tribunal at Ramdurg. Under Section 48-C of the Act plaintiffs are entitled to seek interim orders. In that view of the matter the plaintiffs need not have resorted to the filing of a separate suit in order to seek the decree of permanent injunction as against the defendants. In the above context the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit was not maintainable, the judgment and decree of the Court below confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, is in accordance with the dicta of this Court. There is no infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. In the above context the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit was not maintainable, the judgment and decree of the Court below confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, is in accordance with the dicta of this Court. There is no infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. I do not find any substantial question of law which would arise in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Dismissal of this appeal would not bar the plaintiffs to pursue their application filed under Section 48-C of the Act before the Land Tribunal.