IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1924 of 2009 Date of decision : 1.2.2010 Zile Singh ....Appellant Versus Maman and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The plaintiff-appellant filed the instant appeal against the judgments of the learned trial court dated 26.3.2008 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 19.12.2008. He had filed a suit for declaration seeking declaration to the effect that the order dated 31.10.1980 passed by the Collector, Sonepat, the order dated 28.10.1983 passed by the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade and order dated 5.8.2005 passed by the Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Ganaur pertaining to the partition of the suit property inter se between the parties be declared as illegal, null and void. All these orders had been passed in the partition proceedings initiated by the plaintiff-appellant and it was observed that since the question of title was involved, the revenue courts could not go into it. Respondents No.1 and 2 admitted R.S.A.No.1924 of 2009 -2- the claim of the appellant while respondents No.3 and 4 questioned the maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the matter. The appellant's status as a co-sharer in the suit property was denied and it was pleaded that on 23.6.1965 the land already stood partitioned. The orders of the revenue authorities were stated to be justifiable. The following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the order dated 31.10.1980 passed by the Collector, Sonepat; order dated 28.10.1983 passed by A.C.IInd Grade, Ganaur and the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by A.C.Ist Grade, Ganaur are liable to be declared wrong, illegal, null and void, if so to what effect?OPP 2. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 5. Relief. The learned trial court concluded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the issues at hand regarding the validity of the orders passed by the revenue authorities. In appeal, the suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation and jurisdiction since the orders of 1980 and 1983 were challenged belatedly. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by the courts below are erroneous and liable to be R.S.A.No.1924 of 2009 -3- set aside. He has termed the findings perverse. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first order of the revenue authorities came into existence in 1980 and subsequent one in 1983 and the last one in 2005. The appellant slept over his rights ever since 1980 when the first order came into existence. It is not his case that the partition was sought on some different grounds. The same plea was raked up before the revenue authorities time and again regarding the validity of the proceedings before it. If the appellant was aggrieved by the findings of the revenue authorities, he had a forum for its redressal but the proceedings before the civil court were certainly not the answer and more so when he had resorted to it belatedly. The courts were therefore justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant and no infirmity an be said to have been committed. Accordingly, the appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. 1.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss