Civil Revision No. 4916 of 2004 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4916 of 2004 Date of Decision: 27.4.2009 Banarasi Dass ......Petitioner Versus Sarbati and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the plaint in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was rejected as it did not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration challenging mutation sanctioned on 30.4.1998 in respect of the estate of Mehar Singh, who died on 17.9.1966 and the subsequent order in appeal and revision. The learned trial Court found that such suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court, as the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and Revenue Authorities need not decide the rights of the parties. If the plaintiff is aggrieved against the mutation proceedings, he could have got his rights ascertained from the Civil Court. But, since such right is not Civil Revision No. 4916 of 2004 (2) sought, therefore, the plaint challenging the order sanctioning mutation, is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the plaint. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff-petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in the suit:- “i) the mutation of the land of the deceased Mehar Singh who has died intestate be devolved down to the surviving agnates of the same line, Chandgi, Gopi, Hira and Ramji Lal. ii) and then the mutation of half of this land be made in favour of Chandgi and the other half in favour of the other three to be divided equally among themselves. iii) and the order dated 30.3.98 of the Assistant Collector together with subsequent respective orders dated 2.2.1999 and dated 28.3.2001 of the District Collector and Commissioner concerning this mutation be declared to be null and void, restraining the defendants from interfering into the land of the deceased after granting stay of the operation of these orders concerning mutation of deceased's land.” Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that in substance, the suit for declaration is suit for claiming title over the property, but the relief claimed does not reflect the suit as that of a title. The challenge in the suit is restricted to the orders of mutation. Such suit has been rightly found not to be maintainable by the learned trial Court. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity Civil Revision No. 4916 of 2004 (3) in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, the order impugned in the present revision petition and the present order, will not deprive the plaintiff-petitioner to assert his title in respect of the property in dispute. As and when such suit is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 27.4.2009 ds