IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2318 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 01, 2009 Dilbagh Singh ...... Appellant Versus Daya Chand and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. In this appeal the following questions of law have been proposed:- “1. Whether the judgments an decrees of the Courts below dated 28.08.2008 and 30.03.2002 are preverse? 2. Whether the findings of both courts below regarding the jurisdiction is against the settled law of the land? 3. Whether both the courts below wrongly relief upon the evidence produced by the respondent/defendants?” Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to deny that questions No. 1 and 3 are pure questions of fact, the findings on which have not been shown to be perverse. As regards question No.2 it would be necessary to view briefly the facts which have been brought out. The appellant was aggrieved of an order of partition which he challenged by way of this civil suit. On a consideration of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act the courts below held that the civil court did not have RSA No. 2318 of 2009 -2- the jurisdiction, particularly in view of the fact that on the ground on which the civil suit was filed (viz. the infirmity in summoning and impleadment), there was a satisfactory alternative remedy provided in the said Act. Learned counsel has argued that the Courts below have completely misconstrued the effect of the judgment in Sucha Singh and Balwant Singh v. Nand Singh and others reported as 1976 PLJ 183 wherein this Court categorically held as follows:- “At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the finding of the lower appellate Court that the suit, as framed, was barred by the provisions of section 158 of the Act was wholly erroneous and unsustainable. According to the learned counsel, the order of any Tribunal or authority can be challenged in the civil Court on the ground of collusion and the violation of the principles of natural justice. I fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel. The reasons given by the learned lower appellate Court and repeated in reply by Mr. Gokal Chand Mittal, the learned counsel for the respondents, that the suit is barred by the provisions of section 158 of the Act has no substance. It is well settled principle of law that an order of any authority or Tribunal of special jurisdiction would be open to challenge in the civil Court on the ground of collusion and the violation of the principles of natural justice. The defence put up or the merits of the pleas raised by the plaintiffs are wholly irrelevant for the determination as to whether the suit, as framed, was competent or not. The said finding of the lower appellate Court is, therefore, unsustainable in law and is hereby reversed.” I do find weight in this argument. It is indeed correct that the RSA No. 2318 of 2009 -3- courts below have misconstrued this judgment. However, the courts below have also relied upon the following observations of a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Swarup and others v. Shikar Chand and another reported as AIR 1966 S.C. 893:- “One of the points which is often treated as relevant in dealing with the question about the exclusion of civil courts' jurisdiction is whether the special statute which it urged, excludes such jurisdiction, has used clear and unambiguous words indicating that intention. Another test which is applied is, does the said statute provides for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party that may be aggrieved by the relevant order under its material provisions.” (emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that he has not been able to lay hands on any subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which may take a different view. I also find that the law expounded in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not considered in the judgment of Sucha Singh's case (supra). Consequently I find no error in the determination of the above mentioned question No.2. Consequently this RSA is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 01, 2009 sunita