Civil court jurisdiction may be invoked against a tenancy order alleged to be ultra vires or a nullity, despite an appellate remedy.

A civil court may entertain a suit challenging a Mamlatdar's order under the Bombay Tenancy Act as ultra vires, incompetent, or a nullity, because the statutory bar on civil jurisdiction applies only to valid orders made within jurisdiction. The availability of an appellate remedy does not compel a party to appeal against an order said to be void; such an order may be ignored and directly questioned in civil proceedings. However, because the Act provides a special machinery for restoration of possession, interim injunctions in such challenges should not be granted lightly and require a strong prima facie case.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a Mamlatdar's order under the Bombay Tenancy Act as ultra vires notwithstanding the bar under the Act and the availability of an appeal; (ii) whether an injunction should be granted lightly in such a challenge.

Issue (i): Whether a civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a Mamlatdar's order under the Bombay Tenancy Act as ultra vires notwithstanding the bar under the Act and the availability of an appeal.

Analysis: The bar of civil court jurisdiction applies only to valid orders made within jurisdiction under the Act. If the Mamlatdar's order is incompetent, ultra vires, or a nullity, it is not an order made for the purposes of the Act and may be questioned in a civil court. The existence of an appellate remedy under the Act does not compel a party to appeal against an order that is alleged to be a nullity; such an order may be ignored and challenged directly in a civil suit.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Issue (ii): Whether an injunction should be granted lightly in such a challenge.

Analysis: The Tenancy Act provides a special machinery for restoration of possession, and civil courts should be slow to interfere with that scheme. An injunction ought not to be granted merely on an allegation that the revenue order is ultra vires; a strong prima facie case is required before such interim relief can be issued.

Conclusion: Injunctions in such matters should be granted only on a strong prima facie case.

Final Conclusion: The suit was maintainable in the civil court on the question of ultra vires jurisdiction, but the grant of injunctive relief required careful scrutiny and a strong prima facie foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil court may entertain a suit challenging an order of a tenancy authority as ultra vires or a nullity, and the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar such a challenge; the jurisdictional bar operates only against valid orders made within the authority's competence.

---