HARJINDER SINGH Vs. KESAR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the respondent/defendants has been allowed and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by A.C. 2 nd Grade, Radaur, on a partition application with regard to tarika takseem (mode of partition) is wrong and without jurisdiction. In the said suit defendants appeared and moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The jurisdiction of the civil court has been specifically excluded under Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The land in question is the agricultural land and the same can be partitioned under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Learned trial court allowed the application moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) From the perusal of record it is clear that petitioner had challenged the order of the revenue authorities passed in partition proceedings. In the said proceedings, tarika takseem (mode of partition) was framed. Thereafter naksha bay was prepared which ultimately culminated into instrument of partition (sanad takseem). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that order is illegal and without jurisdiction, is not sustainable as the agricultural land can be partitioned only under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which prescribes an elaborate procedure for the same. Remedy of appeal/revision is available against the orders passed in the partition proceedings; as such proceedings can be challenged in the civil court only when they are illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any illegality or perversity in the orders of the revenue authorities and also could not point out as to how the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further failed to show as to how his share has been reduced or he has not been allotted land according to his share.