Civil court jurisdiction remains available absent clear statutory bar, and a suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 lightly.

Civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC continues over suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred, and the burden to prove such exclusion lies on the party asserting it. A challenge to rejection of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 failed because the dispute involved civil rights concerning company property, and the record did not show any clear ouster of civil jurisdiction or manifest illegality in the trial court's view that the suit was maintainable. In the absence of a demonstrated bar, writ interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred so as to warrant rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The petition challenged the trial court's refusal to reject the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The governing principles were that a civil court has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure over suits of a civil nature unless such jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred, and that the burden to establish such ouster lies on the party asserting it. The dispute raised reliefs relating to alleged civil rights in relation to company property, and the record did not disclose any manifest error or illegality in the trial court's conclusion that the suit was maintainable before the civil court. In the absence of clear exclusion of civil jurisdiction, writ interference was not justified.

Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction was not held to be barred, and the rejection application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly dismissed.

---