Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2010 Date of decision:- 31.03.2011 Des Raj ....Petitioner Vs. Ram Murti and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for respondents. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This petition assails the order dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, whereby the issue No.6 with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, has been decided against the petitioner (defendant in the trial Court). Having examined the impugned order, it transpires that since the order of partition was passed in their absence and respondents were not provided an opportunity to present their case before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade in the partition proceedings and the question with regard to their service in the said proceedings has been seriously disputed by the respondents, therefore, the order passed in partition proceedings is the result of collusion or in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same could be challenged before the Civil Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case Rabindra Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 929, while deciding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2010 2 observed as under:- “17. What matters for exercise of jurisdiction is the source of power and not the failure to mention the correct provisions of law. Even in the absence of any express provision having regard to the principles of natural justice in such a proceeding, the courts will have ample jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte decree, subject of course to the statutory interdict.” Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 31st of March, 2011 JUDGE ajp