JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. He has challenged judgement passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, dated 03.12.2016 below application Exhs 22, 29 and 37 filed by the respondents-original defendants. By such judgement, the learned Judge was pleased to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. Brief facts emerging from the plaint are as under: Plaintiff claims to be a tenant of certain agriculture land (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the suit land'). He instituted proceedings under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ['The Tenancy Act' for short] for being declared as a tenant. Such application was granted by the Mamlatdar and ALT. He was declared as a tenant. The appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, the landowners, was rejected by the Deputy Collector by an order dated 12.01.1996. No further proceedings were carried by the landowners against such orders of the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiff thereafter filed application under section 32G of the Tenancy Act for fixing the sale price of the land. The Mamlatdar and ALT by an order dated 14.05.2004 asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 15,257/- within one year and provided that upon payment of such sum, necessary certificate under section 32M of the Act would be granted. He will become the purchaser of the land subject to restrictions envisaged under section 43 of the Act. The plaintiff paid over such sum. The landowners challenged the order of the Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector, who rejected the said appeal on 01.04.2010. They thereafter filed revision petition before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal under its judgement dated 15.07.2014 held that the plaintiff was related to the land owners and therefore, could not be declared as a tenant of the land. Orders passed by the Mamlatdar and GRT under section 32G of the Act came to be set aside. Plaintiff has filed writ petition before the High Court which is pending. Pending such proceedings, the landowners-defendants No. 1 and 2 sold the suit land to defendant No. 3. Orders passed by the Mamlatdar and GRT under section 32G of the Act came to be set aside. Plaintiff has filed writ petition before the High Court which is pending. Pending such proceedings, the landowners-defendants No. 1 and 2 sold the suit land to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff therefore filed the said suit and made the following prayers: (i) For a declaration that he is the sole owner of the suit land and is in possession of the same as the owner and the defendants should not interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the land. Further, on the basis of the sale deed they will not be prevented from dealing with the land in any manner including the conversion of land into non-agricultural use and ploughing out the same. (ii) To declare that the sale deeds under which the suit land was sold by defendants No. 1 and 2 to defendant No.3 were illegal and invalid; (iii) The defendant be injuncted from dealing with the suit land and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the said land. 3. The defendants filed application Exhs 22, 29 and 37 before the Trial Court and urged the Trial Court to reject the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In such application, they raised following main contentions: (i) The entire dispute raised by the plaintiff in the suit is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court; (ii) The plaintiff is not the tenant of the suit land; (iii) The order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT is reversed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The suit therefore does not disclose cause of action. In the meantime, the landowners have sold the land to the defendant No.3; (iv) The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the plaintiff as a tenant of the suit land which can be done only by the Revenue Court; (v) On the basis of admitted facts, the plaintiff does not have any cause of action for filing the suit; (vi) The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have been residing abroad since long. The plaintiff has tried to exploit such situation and created false evidence of his tenancy; 4. On such application Exh 22, the Trial Court rejected the plaint by the impugned judgement and decree. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have been residing abroad since long. The plaintiff has tried to exploit such situation and created false evidence of his tenancy; 4. On such application Exh 22, the Trial Court rejected the plaint by the impugned judgement and decree. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the GRT had set aside the orders of the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector. The High Court, in the writ petition filed by the plaintiff, has merely provided that the petitioner shall not alienate the property. The plaintiff is misinterpreting such order of the High Court. Upon the GRT passing the order, the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector under section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act stood automatically reversed. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have already sold the land to defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed upon full consideration being paid over. 5. We may recall, the request of the defendants was to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. As is well settled, in such proceedings, we shall have to proceed on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and take into consideration the accompanying documents. At this stage, the defence of the defendants would not be relevant. The question whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed eventually or not is also not relevant. The question is, has any ground arisen for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. We have recorded multiple prayers of the plaintiff in the suit. One of his prayer, of course, was for declaration that the sale of the land by defendants No. 1 and 2 to defendant No. 3 was invalid. We may recall, according to the plaintiff, he has already been declared as tenant of the suit land, which order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT was confirmed by the Deputy Collector and achieved finality for want of any further challenge by the landowners. According to the plaintiff, therefore, in subsequent proceedings for fixation of the purchase value of the land, the GRT could not have gone beyond such orders and declared that the plaintiff was not a tenant. The plaintiff's petition against the order of GRT is pending before this Court. According to the plaintiff, therefore, in subsequent proceedings for fixation of the purchase value of the land, the GRT could not have gone beyond such orders and declared that the plaintiff was not a tenant. The plaintiff's petition against the order of GRT is pending before this Court. A question would certainly arise whether the prayer of the plaintiff for declaration of the sale deed as invalid can be decided by the Civil Court or by the Revenue Court. Sub- section (1) of section 84C of the Tenancy Act provides that whether in respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land made on or after the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of the Act, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided for in section 84B and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not valid. Sub section (1) of Section 85 of the Tenancy Act provides no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal etc. Sub section (2) of section 85 further under order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal etc. made under this Act would be questioned in any civil or criminal court. Section 85A of the Tenancy Act provides for suits involving issues required to be decided under the Act. Sub section (1) thereof provides that if any suit instituted whether before or after the specified date in any Civil Court involves any issues which are required to be decided, settled or dealt with by any competent authority to settle, decide or deal with such issue under the said Act the Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issue to such competent authority for determination. 6. If the validity of the sale deeds was the sole prayer of the plaintiff whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction under section 85 of the Tenancy Act would become an important issue. 6. If the validity of the sale deeds was the sole prayer of the plaintiff whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction under section 85 of the Tenancy Act would become an important issue. However, this being one of the prayers and not the sole prayer, the prayer of section 85A of the Act would apply and the Civil Court even if it is of the opinion that such issue can be decided only by the Revenue Court would refer the issue under sub section (1) of section 85A of the Tenancy Act and await outcome thereof. 7. However, the plaintiff has made other prayers including the prayer that he being the sole owner the defendant be restrained from dealing with the land, disturbing his possession and enjoyment of the land and in any manner transferring the land or develop the same or applying for conversion of the land into non-agriculture use. These prayers are exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court for which the civil suit is mandatory. There are bound to be certain overlapping elements of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the Revenue Court in a case like this. It is therefore that section 85A of the Tenancy Act envisages reference of such an issue which can be decided only by the Revenue Court and keeping the civil suit penidng. By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that either the Civil Court had only jurisdiction or that the suit on the basis of averments made in the plaint did not disclose cause of action whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed or not cannot be the consideration for rejecting the plaint at the threshold. For such reason, judgement of the Trial Court is reversed. Civil Suit is revived and placed before the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law and without being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgement. First appeal along with civil application is disposed of accordingly. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendants prayed for stay of this judgement till 28.02.2018. Instead of staying the judgement, we request the Trial Court not to proceed further with reviving the suit till such date.