the plaintiff submitted that in the earlier suit, this Court had passed an order directing the Trial Court to make a reference to the authorities under the said Act of 1948. He submitted that ignoring the said direction, a consent decree was passed. He submitted that in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 1961, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the several issues which arose in the suit. He submitted that the consent decree passed in the suit in which the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue agricultural tenancy, was void. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gundaji Satwaji Shinde vs. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi (AIR 1979 SC 653) in support of his contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy and the surrender of tenancy in the suit in which the consent decree has been passed. He submitted that there could not have been surrender of the rights of tenancy without following the procedure under the said Act. He submitted that as the case made out by the plaintiff is that consent decree was void ab-initio , there was no warrant to come to a conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.
