R.S.A. No.3678 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3678 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 4.3.2010 Surjit Singh .... Appellant VERSUS Darshan Singh & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. This Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 3.2.2006 and 19.8.2008 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Barnala (for short `the first appellate Court'). The plaintiff questioned the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Barnala dated 28.2.2002 by which the sanad takseem was sanctioned, concluding the partition proceedings inter se between the parties. The order has been questioned on the ground that the partition was not fair and that the resultant distribution of the assets has been unequal. The Trial Court as also the first Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the appellant. Learned Trial Court dismissed R.S.A. No.3678 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the suit by concluding that the necessary parties were not impleaded as defendants and declined the declaration as sought for. It however, concluded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred as Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (in short 'the Act') even though specifically debarring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, could not prevent the over-riding impact of Section 9 of the C.P.C., conferring jurisdiction in matters wherein principles of natural justice have been violated or procedural irregularities resorted to by the competent authority under the Act. The first Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on similar grounds resulting in the filing of instant Regular Second Appeal. It has vehemently been contented by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 28.2.2002 is erroneous as it has resulted in distribution of the assets, which are unequal and consequently, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. During the subsistence of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 was moved by the appellant to bring on record by way of additional evidence two other orders passed by the Collector Barnala dated 17.3.2004 and order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, Division, Patiala dated 17.1.2007, pertaining to the challenge made by the appellant regarding the order dated 28.2.2002 before the aforesaid authorities under the Act. Both these orders rejected the plea of the appellant to conclude that Sanad Takseem has already been sanctioned and the R.S.A. No.3678 of 2008 (O&M) -3- instrument of partition has been finalized and acted upon and as such the partition stands concluded. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have, thus, heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments and also other material on record. The foremost question that has to be determined is whether the Civil Court has any jurisdiction to traverse into the domain of the controversy as raised before it. There is no doubt that Section 9 of the C.P.C. confers the power of the Civil Court to entertain and decide any civil suit, but the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that if a specific statute debars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court., then the impact of such a provision of law has to be evaluated by interpreting that the intention of the legislature was clearly to debar the jurisdiction of Civil Court unless it is shown by specific pleadings and consequent evidence in that regard that the competent authority, who was empowered under the Act to exercise its jurisdiction in the first instance has either exceeded its jurisdiction or has failed to exercise it or has resorted to an act of flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. It is only in such an eventuality that the Civil Court could empower itself to question the orders passed by such authorities. If the facts of the case are to be seen as juxtaposed against the aforesaid observations and then it becomes abundantly clear that the appellant has neither pleaded any such fact, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and as a consequence prejudiced his case, nor has he been able to R.S.A. No.3678 of 2008 (O&M) -4- show as to what procedural error was committed by such an authority in finalizing the Takseem i.e. the instrument of partition. In such an eventuality, the Trial Court clearly fell in error by conferring jurisdiction upon itself and likewise the first Appellate Court also omitted to address this issue and committed an error. That apart it is to be seen that by the own showing of the appellant he had already filed an appeal against this order before the Collector and thereafter, had assailed this order before the Divisional Collector, Patiala Division, Patiala and all this was done during subsistence of the proceedings in the Civil Court. The appellant was precluded from taking recourse to two parallel proceedings at the same time. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgments are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Civil Court clearly had no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit in view of the specific bar provided under Section 158 of the Act. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. All the pending applications are also dismissed in view of above. 4th March, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE