R.S.A. No. 1354 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1354 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision:- 02.11.2011 Bachan Singh ...Appellant versus Kewal Krishan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. RITU BAHRI J. C.M. No.3785-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application same is allowed and the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. R.S.A. No.1354 of 2011 This regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31.10.2008 and judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 07.09.2010 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is in cultivating possession of the land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas fully detailed in the plaint situated within the revenue estate of Village Kharak, Tehsil Guhla as tenant @ 1/4th batai. He is not in R.S.A. No. 1354 of 2011 -2- arrear of any rent. An ejectment order dated 24.7.2001 was passed by A.C.1st Grade, Guhla in case No.16 titled 'Kewal Krishan etc. versus Bachan Singh' under form L, Rule 22 and Section 14-A)i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. The grievance of the plaintiff is that he was not served any notice for depositing the amount of rent due if any. The order of ejectment passed by the A.C.1st Grade is without jurisdiction and abuse of process of law. The plaintiff has challenged the order on the ground that ejectment petition filed through General Power of Attorney was liable to be dismissed. The defendants in their written statement through their GPA Kewal Krishan took the stand that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff had already filed an appeal against the order dated 24.7.2001 before the Collector, Kaithal, which was dismissed on 21.4.1998. Prior to this ejectment order passed by A.C.1st Grade, Guhla on 19.11.1996 appeal against this order was dismissed on 21.4.1998. The defendants through their GPA received 1/4th share and withdrew the application. The plaintiff has chronic defaulter of payment of 1/4th batai. The ejectment order dated 24.7.2001 is legal. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration sought?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD R.S.A. No. 1354 of 2011 -3- 3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed true and material facts from the Court?OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court has given the finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as he had an efficacious remedy for challenging the ejectment order dated 24.7.2001 before the Collector and Commissioner. The plaintiff was granted due opportunity of payment of rent during the proceedings before the A.C.1st Grade, Guhla. Despite that the plaintiff failed to pay the rent, which is evident from the order Ex.P11. Since due opportunity of payment of rent was given to the plaintiff, therefore, the order of ejectment does not suffer from dies of principle of natural justice. There is no violation of any provision of 1953 Act, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Section 9 of CPC to entertain the suit. The plaintiff could challenge the order before the Collector and Commissioner. As far as issue Nos.2,3 and 5 are concerned, the onus to prove these issues was on defendants. However, these issues were not pressed at the time of arguments. The Civil Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability. The Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court that as per Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. R.S.A. No. 1354 of 2011 -4- This view has been followed by our High Court in Savitri and Bhagwati versus State of Haryana and others 1998(1) LJR 410. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate could not dispute the settled proposition of law that the order of ejectment passed under 1953 Act was appealable before the Collector and Commissioner. No substantial question of law is involved for adjudication. The plaintiff had an alternative remedy for challenging the aforesaid order of ejectment before the authorities prescribed under the 1953 Act. The regular second appeal is dismissed. November 02, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE